2
.
ys
ie
#
£3
pepeatee
BRESPSELS
4
aby eae
2
:
2
}
¥
OED
fe
ae
Si59%
ei »
G
Hy
t.f.tls
phpeats
wees!
oe
>>
tothe
eee
ote
©
‘3
peer
aS
moe
ee
Ba
state
+
4 oe)
cer acore’
esos
i25e%2%
.
oe
ietate
eee
.
.
.
.
*
oS
%
5
ae
aye
*
tothe.
»
'*
2
tie he
=
>
2,
TP
S
8
(S
+,
.
3
5°,
oy
rr
*
ay
teas
ate
ete
Ss
eetee,
Fotete!
5
HS
iS
Re
.
.
fat otod
S$
ae
oie
‘>
>
=
S
5
S
4
ey
Bee
c
4
S
.
‘
aes
pratee
.
eteie
3<5
Pehet ere!
5
>
RRs
f}
s
ve ere:
ef
ae
2
e
PPLe > >;
(lt
Zetezetete!
e >
Pirlo,
bpopeporeeess:
SI Se ease ae
>
ate
2
Pa
<3
ri
ole . >
pepe. par atee
>
2sbaP
tes
ere
G
>
ee
a
.
af
>
6
e
Se5-<4
a
=
4
-,
iS
3)
2°
°
.
“
»
5
$43
stats
*¥
‘
Pare “A, ee, "Sih x rs
S
oe
i
+
'
<
>
5
4
mie
3
HS
*
i
a
O
S
>
2)
3.
2
*
o
>
>
air
S$
2.
=
>
‘3
§
.
ss
oS.
tLe
4
.
+
5
be
*,
>,
2
2
5
+
*
°
2
3!
¢;
o
2!
A
>
|
es
S
S
G
°
>
ess
Bates
<
+
Sa3<9
4
Dpbe
StS
(a
Po
<5
KS
"
tet
k
iS
i}
ey
,
Pe
*
5
>
$2
7
+
>
Sa
ae
*
S
*
<3
Se
4
2
*:
aS
iS
$e
>
be
>
MSE S45
x
tees
Rahat sts
YY
Sesrees
Be
ions
:
Ae
aban
yee en
-s Dao AAO
Deaf oats
os ?,
~e eo
he
Pye
eas
a ae &
on
PPS a>
enn
eee RET
2 de ee ane &
ere Ce RAN
het ne te
A Sins
PR RIOD
ae Oe nb 14H
ye
ie
ital weet ROOT IL
ie
Ve 8
Py.
co
y a -
.: i) :
Beco
.) + 7
_ a
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/historyofnationa0001 wilh
A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
VOL. I
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK + BOSTON + CHICAGO » DALLAS
ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limitrep
LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Lrp.
TORONTO
| Hale ial
A HISTORY #/-/
OF THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL
FROM ITS FOUNDATION THROUGH THE
PERIOD OF THE ADOPTION OF
THE ORGANIC ACT
BY
WILHELMUS BOGART BRYAN
———— a |
VOL. I
1790-1814
SAS
New Bork
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1914
All rights reserved
/
Copygricat, 1914,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
Set up and electrotyped. Published April, r9r4.
1+
Norwood WBress
J.8. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co,
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
To
MY WIFE
ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
QOaA RT ARTTSCRATTSCA “TRevand
Min ¢e%
~ ey co eee
on ; ed as Te i, '
Ms wire’ 7M ‘ |
: i ver
. |
CONTENTS
WOT 3
CHAPTER I
CAPITAL SITE REQUIREMENTS . : 7
IMPORTANCE OF CENTRAL PLACE . .
INFLUENCE OF PROVINCIALISM : .
SECTIONAL JEALOUSY : r : 2
First OFFER OF A LOCATION . : -
JURISDICTION AND LOCATION . : :
CONGRESS THREATENED . : ‘
THE FLIGHT TO PRINCETON . : -
RESIDENCE QUESTION TAKEN UP. ‘
ORIGIN OF JURISDICTION IDEA 2 :
DOUBLE CAPITAL PLAN . ; : ‘
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION . : 2
BUILDING ERECTED FOR CONGRESS :
L’ENFANT AS ARCHITECT. : ‘ :
SKETCH OF HIS CAREER . ; : a
BEFORE THE FIRST CONGRESS . , ;
SusQUEHANNA AND THE POTOMAC SITES
ImporTANCE OF Potomac RIVER
CENTRALITY A STRONG FACTOR ; :
TEMPORARY VICTORY FOR THE NORTH
AcTION OF JAMES MaApIson . :
CHAPTER II
TAKEN UP AT SECOND SESSION i ;
THE OFFER OF BALTIMORE . . A
VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND GRANTS .
POTOMAC SITE CHOSEN. : ; :
STATE LAWS CONTINUED . : : ,
PAGE
oN Pw DF
36
36
37
38
39
Vill CONTENTS
“THAT INDIAN PLACE” . P
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE POWER
RESULT OF A BARGAIN . :
CHAPTER
THE POTOMAC REGION...
DECREASE IN THE INDIANS .
First EUROPEAN VISITOR ,
INDIAN VILLAGE SITES. :
THE COURSE OF SETTLEMENT .
EARLY LAND GRANTS :
THE TOBACCO TRADE ; ‘
ALEXANDRIA AND GEORGETOWN
HAMBURG AND CARROLLSBURG
THE EARLY HIGHWAYS
Tue BRADDOCK EXPEDITION
Poromac RIvER IMPROVEMENTS
CHAPTER IV
STAMP ACT OPPOSITION . ‘
HoMESPUN AND NO TEA .
THE WAR OF THE REVOLUTION
CHAPTER V
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY . ; ;
ORGANIZATION OF CHURCHES .
Rock CREEK PARISH ; :
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH . é
CatTHoLic CHURCH . : ;
LUTHERAN CHURCH . 3 :
Mernopist CHurcH. 2 :
THE SCHOOLS . : , ‘<
GEORGETOWN COLLEGE . :
NEWSPAPERS. ‘ : ‘
TRADE CONDITIONS . : :
Earty GEORGETOWN RESIDENTS
MASONIC LODGES FORMED
OVATION TO GENERAL WASHINGTON
.
a
100
102
104
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI
LOcATION OF THE DistTRICcT .
WASHINGTON’S PERSONAL INSPECTION
RECEPTION AT HAGERSTOWN .
UrrrrR POTOMAC SITE PROPOSED
THREE SITES CONSIDERED 2
OPpposiTION IN PHILADELPHIA
THE VIEWS OF JEFFERSON.
WASHINGTON’S CHOICE . ;
COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED.
How THE LAND WAS SECURED
A SURVEY OF THE TERRITORY
PLAN OF THE CITY . ‘ :
WASHINGTON’S SECRET AGENTS
JEFFERSON’S PLAN OF THE MALL
WASHINGTON MEETS THE LANDOWNERS .
L’ENFANT’S PROPOSED TREATMENT.
LANDOWNERS REFUSE TO SIGN DEEDS
DISTRICT CORNER-STONE LAID.
THE PROPERTY HOLDERS YIELD
THE SPECULATION IN LAND
L’ENFANT DESCRIBES HIS PLAN
THE IDEAL AND THE PRACTICAL
.
PLAN NOT READY FOR FIRST SALE.
CHAPTER
MEAGRE RESULTS OF FIRST LOT SALE
UNUSUAL BUILDING REGULATIONS
Vil
COMMISSIONERS’ OFFICE IN GEORGETOWN
Tur CARROLL HOUSE EPISODE
MARYLAND PROVIDES LAWS
AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS .
THE CRISIS WITH L’ENFANT .
Tue L’ENFANT PLAN _ :
L’ENFANT’S SUBSEQUENT CAREER
.
.
159
162
165
165
169
171
173
177
180
x CONTENTS
CHAPTER VIII
PAGE
FIRST ENGRAVED PLAN . a : ‘ , - ‘ . . 184
GROUND FOR PUBLIC USES : % : ; - ‘ r . 185
SAMUEL BLODGETT’S CAREER . ‘ ‘ ‘ = 4 c cacd8i
Tue Rock CREEK BRIDGE : ‘ : F 4 i : . 189
THE CITY CANAL BEGUN . : ‘ F . r i 4 5 Jt
ELLICOTT’S PROPOSED CHANGES IN PLAN : - 3 A pawl 92
Hopan’s Wuitr Hovusk PLAN : : - ; : A . 194
THORNTON’S CAPITOL PLAN. F : : : ' : oe
WuitrE HovusrE CORNER-STONE LAID : ; - ‘ . 204
BLODGETT’s HOTEL LOTTERY . : : - a ‘ ‘ 2 e20o
ELLICOTT’S SERVICE ENDS : : 7 i ° ° . ~ 208
CHAPTER IX
CAPITOL CORNER-STONE LAID . , : ‘ “ 7 é eas
Tuer GREENLEAF PURCHASE . 4 ; : A - A APA!
Morris, NICHOLSON AND GREENLEAF . a 0 s Z PANG
Toxsras LEAR’S BUSINESS VENTURE : A 4 2 é , PPXY
BANK OF COLUMBIA CHARTERED . 5 7 “ 5 , 5 PRP
AUDIT OF CITY ACCOUNTS : . é , : 5 A . 224
TREES ON THE MALL A : A ; : é . A, PP)
FEDERAL LoTTERY No. 2 ; : “ : - 4 é eure
SEQUEL oF LotTERY No.1 . ; , F ; é - Bea)
PROBLEMS OF LABOR AND MATERIAL . 3 - é 5 PH!
FINANCING DIFFICULTIES . > Z A 0 A é . 234
CHANGE IN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . ; 4 5 x a BYE
OFFICE MOVED TO WASHINGTON . * ; ; 5 3 . 240
Bripce at LITTLE FAs : ; ; 5 ; 3 5 . 243
Tuomas Law’s PURCHASE 5 : 7 ‘ s : 3 . 244
QUESTION OF A WATER STREET. 3 c A ; . . 248
CHAPTER X
WASHINGTON AND A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. i 2 " ood
UsrEsS OF THE RESERVATIONS . ‘ : ‘ - c . 254
BIG SYNDICATE SHOWS WEAKNESS . : : A : : §) 6266
PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS . , F ‘ c : eos
CONTENTS
THE CITY POST-OFFICE . ‘ ; Z
APPEAL FOR AID TO CONGRESS 3 :
PEN PICTURES OF THE CITY . : ;
CHAPTER XI
SITES FOR FOREIGN LEGATIONS : ;
FRAME BUILDINGS PERMITTED ; :
Morris AND NICHOLSON’S BARBECUE
WasHINGYON GAZETTE AND THE BLODGETT
LEVY COURT AND CITY . ; e i
WASHINGTON CANAL LOTTERY : E
Brivce at LittLte Fairs : : A
BusINESS ENTERPRISES . ‘ ‘ :
FaILurRE OF Morris AND NICHOLSON .
SURVEYORS OF THE CITY. : : ‘
LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS . A 3 :
FIRST DAILY NEWSPAPER . : . :
A LOAN FROM CONGRESS . 2 : :
CHAPTER XII
ACTIVITY IN BUILDING . ; : :
First DEPARTMENT BUILDING . :
THORNTON AND HIS CAPITOL PLAN .
PRESIDENT’S HOUSE AT A STANDSTILL .
THE LABOR PROBLEM : . : :
PuBLIC LAND NOT CONVEYED . : ;
LIsT OF RESERVATIONS . ‘ - :
PoLicy AS TO SMALL SPACES . : :
SITES FOR LEGATION RESIDENCES . :
THE NAVY YARD ‘ : : :
FIRST THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE . :
PUBLIC BURIAL GROUNDS F
CHAPTER XIII
WueEen GENERAL WASHINGTON DIED
CONGRESS AND THE REMOVAL r ;
ON THE EVE OF BECOMING THE CAPITAL
. .
.
LOTTERY
xll CONTENTS
Visit oF PRESIDENT ADAMS . é : 5
WHERE THE DEPARTMENTS WERE LOCATED .
IMPRESSIONS OF THE CITY ‘ ; : :
POPULATION OF THE DISTRICT ; : :
CHAPTER XIV
CONDITION OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. A
OPENING OF A THEATRE . mA P A ;
INCREASE IN STAGE LINES ‘ : , é
THE NEWSPAPERS. > : ‘ : ;
THE SUPREME COURT r 3 7 j é
MARINE CoRPS HEADQUARTERS , : 3
PARTISAN FEELING AROUSED . F ‘ A
THE COMING OF CONGRESS . A ‘ 0
THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ; ‘ 3 P
LIFE IN THE NEW CITY . : : p
FIRES IN DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS . . .
CHAPTER XV
THE PROBLEM OF A GOVERNMENT . ; 5
CouRSE OF CONGRESS 3 ‘ : E
VIEWS OF CITIZENS . ‘ : A é a
PROPOSED TERRITORIAL FORM ; < :
THE SUFFRAGE PHASE. : , - :
THE LAW oF Fes. 27, 1801 . ‘ ; ‘
THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES . F ‘ : :
JEFFERSON’S INAUGURATION . : F A
PROVISION FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES . .
JEFFERSON AND DISTRICT PATRONAGE . F
CIRCUIT COURT ORGANIZED. 5 ; 4
CHAPTER XVI
WHAT THE CITY COST. : . x %
CiTY BOARD ABOLISHED . 5 = ;
PURPOSE OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS i +
THE FIRST MARKET HOUSE. : 3
PAGE
347
850
853
355
357
361
362
364
370
870
372
374
378
379
384
387
388
392
396
397
400
401
404
407
409
413
415
416
418
419
CONTENTS
LEVY COURT AND THE CITY . 3 J ;
AN ADMIRALTY COURT . Is £ : 3
WHIPPING-POST AND BRANDING. - :
POTOMAC BRIDGE CONTROVERSY . ; P
THE BANKING INTERESTS. : . - "
A BUILDING ASSOCIATION 4 : . -
PRINTING AND BOOK SELLING . : . 5
CHAPTER XVII
JEFFERSON’S ADMINISTRATION . : : 5
CAUSES OF THE REMOVAL AGITATION . :
THE VEXED QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT ;
Lack or Districr UNITY ; é . ‘
THE CITY INCORPORATED : - ‘ ;
PoLicy OF CONGRESS A ’ : : :
THE HOUSE CHAMBER COMPLETED . ; P
IMPROVEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE .
JEFFERSON’S SECOND INAUGURATION. ;
CONDITION OF THE WHITE House. ; ;
MADISON BECOMES PRESIDENT , . i
CHAPTER XVIII
REMOVAL AGITATION RENEWED : : :
CITY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZED : : ‘
THE SYSTEM OF TAXATION. : ; :
THE FRANCHISE PRIVILEGE . : : ;
PuBLic SCHOOL SYSTEM . : : , .
FAILURE OF THE SCHOOL PLAN ; : ;
THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED MARKETS
CHAPTER XIX
THE ERECTION OF BRIDGES . :
To BUILD THE WasHINGTON CiTy CANAL
THE PoTOMAC BRIDGE MOVEMENT . : ;
GEORGETOWN AND THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT
THE BURDEN OF THE STREETS : : é
EARLY USE OF THE RESERVATIONS P P
XIV CONTENTS
THE PRINCIPAL SECTION OF THE CITY
A LIBRARY ESTABLISHED ‘ ;
TRADE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING TURNPIKE ROADS . ;
THE BANKS OF THE DISTRICT ‘
THE COMING OF STEAM . : :
CHAPTER
THE BURDEN OF THE POOR. :
THE POLICE PROVISIONS . 2 ;
WoRK HOUSE AND POOR HOUSE i
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT UNUSUAL .
DEBT IMPRISONMENT LAWS IN FAVOR
FATE OF SOME EARLY INVESTORS .
FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES . :
THE SPRINGS AND STREAMS . :
INSURANCE COMPANIES FORMED.
ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA ;
RESULTS OF A WAR ALARM . J
SOME OF THE EARLY RESIDENTS .
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL CUSTOMS
SocIAL ATTRACTIONS OF THE CITY
JoEL BARLOW AND ROBERT FULTON
CHAPTER XXI
AFTERMATH OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY
IsSUE OF NEWSPAPERS . : ‘
Tuer FEDERAL REPUBLICAN AFFAIR
AN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY . :
ORGANIZATION OF PRINTERS . :
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCHES .
GRAVEYARDS ABOUT CHURCHES.
HorRsE RACING AND CONGRESS P
BRITISH VESSELS CAUSE UNEASINESS
DEFENCES OF THE CITY . . ,
BRITISH APPROACH TO THE CITY .
THE MEANS OF PROTECTION . ;
.
.
586
590
596
598
599
607
609
612
616
618
621
CONTENTS
THE HAPPENINGS AT BLADENSBURG : 5 5 :
PUBLIC BUILDINGS DESTROYED ; “ a 5 ‘
AFTER THE ENEMY’S DEPARTURE . Z é ; é
PUBLIC BUSINESS RESUMED . : 3 ? : ,
REMOVAL RESOLUTION VOTED DOWN. - F A
CiTIzENS ERECT THE Brick CAPITOL . A ‘ ‘
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Map. — PROPERTY LINES OF OWNERS OF CITY’S SITE .
Mar. — THE VICINITY OF WASHINGTON : : ;
JEFFERSON’S PLAN OF THE MALL . ; : F ‘
Map. — THE PLAN OF THE CITY . : : - é
THORNTON’S DESIGN OF THE CAPITOL . : F F
Map. — Route oF THE BriTIsH ARMY . : : ;
50
111
130
176
318
619
ae
? ree LAS ies
Pees | x fh
its wuy
; 4 rT tie = 7 ed able
ATAULIY Hi » Tans,
LVN TARTS bos
; icf
fl ayer ee or be
in ; a ae
Pid ie
“ot Shae
A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL
CHAPTER I
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT
A VITAL consideration in selecting the location of the seat of
government of the United States was convenience of access to
all portions of the country. It was to be central as to popula-
tion and as to territory. Moreover, it was to be ona navigable
river connecting the Atlantic on the one side with the great
western country on the other. There was another element.
The jurisdiction of the general government must be supreme.
There must be no divided sovereignty, no state to exercise
equal authority with the general government, or in fact, any
authority except federal where the government was to be
placed. It is not a matter of surprise that the first emphasis
was placed almost at the outset of this discussion upon cen-
trality. For in the year 1783, when this question first arose,
and which witnessed the signing of the treaty of peace between
the United States and England, and the close of the struggle
of the colonies for independence, which had begun eight years
before, communication between the different portions of the
country was slow and difficult.
To-day the people of Philadelphia in point of time are as
near the Pacific coast as the residents of that city in the year
1783 were to Boston. Then stage coaches, pursuing their
lumbering way over roads that were rough and dangerous, went
at the rate of about two miles an hour. As one result of the
state of transportation, people travelled but little, and their
isolation made them provincial and local in their feelings and
VOL. I—B 1
2 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in theirideas. This latter condition had an influence upon prac-
tically all the public questions of the day. In fact, a national
spirit was still feeble and well represented by the articles of
confederation which had been ratified by all the states less than
two years before, and which jealously retained to the individual
states all the authority and power, and left the confederacy a
mere shadow of a strong and effective government.
The provincial and also sectional tendencies were so strong
that for a time it seemed probable the confederacy would fly
apart into a number of independent states. The New England
states failed to appreciate the importance to the south and
southwest of the free navigation of the Mississippi, just as the
value of foreign commercial relations and the fishing rights on
the Newfoundland banks were not grasped by the people out-
side of that territory. Then, too, the unwillingness of the
states laying claim to the crown lands in the western country
to recognize that they should be made a part of the common
fund, delayed for four years, or until 1781, the complete rati-
fication of the articles of confederation. Each state also insisted
upon its own customs duties without regard to the interests of
adjoining states. Then there was the deep-seated and violently
active feeling of the staple states against the commercial states,
so vital a factor in American thought that it lay at the founda-
tion of the two great parties that first divided politically the
people of America.
“There is a fatal opposition to continental views,” writes
Hamilton to Washington, March 17, 1783, in describing the
sentiment in that body of which he was a member. He speaks
of two classes of men in congress in a letter written a month
later to Washington, “one attached to states, the other to con-
tinental policies. The last have been strenuous advocates
for funding the public debt upon solid securities, the former have
given every opposition in their power.” !
It is only in harmony with their general attitude, which
may be attributed in part at least to ignorance of conditions
away from home as much as to anything else, that the members
1 Correspondence. American Revolution. Sparks, Vol. 4.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 3
of the continental congress, as well as those of the first congress
under the constitution, displayed local prejudice and narrow-
ness when they came to consider the question of choosing a
place which should be the seat of the general government.
The jealousies of the states found expression in one of the com-
promises of the constitution, which gave equal representation
to large and small states in the senate of the United States.
Before slavery had emerged from being merely a local issue, and
before the final alignment into political parties had fully taken
place, the sentiment of the country was divided on sectional
lines, the south against the north. If it had not been for the
fear that the advantage of the location of the national capital
would be seized upon in the interests of either one or the other
of the two sections, the fixing of a permanent residence site
would probably have been deferred until after the machinery
of the new government had been devised and set in motion, and
certainly until the public revenue could be known and the
financial resources of the government tested. For this reason
mainly, as well as because of the promptings of local interests
and ambition, the choice of a permanent seat was always
“insinuating itself in all great national questions.”’ ?
The advantages to be derived as a source of local influence
and revenue from such a centre as the capital of the nation were
fully recognized at a time and by a people that were actively
entering upon a career of land development on a scale that was
only equalled by the greatness of the territory. But it can
readily be understood the physical difficulties of communication
gave the mere geography of the site an importance that was
very real at the time, and which also served to give a sharper
edge to the blade of sectional controversy.
The argument for centrality within an area confined to the
narrow fringe of territory east of the Alleghanies held. the
chief place in the discussions of the national body, but the
1Annals of Congress. 1st Cong., 2d Sess., May 31, 1790, p. 1622.
John Bach MeMaster characterized the debate on the residence bill
in the first session of the first congress as “ one of the longest and the
most acrimonious the members had yet been engaged in.’’ History of
the People of the United States, Vol. 1, p. 555.
4 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
individualistic and sectional attitude of the states is aptly
illustrated by the form in which this subject was first introduced.
In the spring of the year 1783 the continental congress made
proclamation that the war with England was over, although
actual hostilities ceased after the operations in Georgia, in the
early part of 1782, and had not been resumed. But before
peace was formally concluded congress was asked to fix upon
a place for its permanent seat.
The subject had no doubt been in the minds of men, and had
been spoken of previous to this time. As early as November,
1779, Benjamin Rush, then a member of congress, writing from
Philadelphia to Colonel George Morgan of Princeton, N.J., in-
formed him that “some of the members of Congress were
talking of purchasing a few square miles of territory near
that village, wherein to erect public offices and buildings for
a permanent house.’ 4
The first recorded action was taken by the trustees of the
corporation of Kingston, N.Y., on the 29th of January, 1783,
nine days after the preliminary articles of peace were signed in
Paris. The news, however, was not received in this country
until March 23, 1783, but it had been confidently expected.”
The Kingston town authorities had then decided “to ascertain
the sense of the town as to whether it would be agreeable to
them to have the Honorable the Congress of the United States
come and reside in their town.” ?
In the course of a few days it was ascertained that the senti-
ment of the citizens was favorable, and the trustees sent a
memorial to the legislature of the state of New York, praying
that “their estate be erected into a separate district for the
Honorable the Congress of the United States.” 4
Authority was asked to grant to congress one square mile
within the limits of the town. In response to this request,
1 Princeton Collection, Library of Princeton. Quoted in The
Continental Congress at Princeton, Thomas L. Collins, Princeton, 1908.
2 Critical Period of American History, p. 51. John Fiske, Boston,
1894.
’ History of Kingston, New York. By Marcus Shoonmaker,
1888. 4 The same.
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 5
the state legislature on the 14th of March, 1783, adopted a
resolution that the inhabitants of the corporation of the town-
ship of Kingston have offered to grant to congress “a sufficient
quantity of land within the said township to secure to Congress
a place of residence adequate to their dignity with all the
privileges which are in their power to grant and to subject
themselves within the bounds of the said township to such
regulations for the purpose of giving an exempt jurisdiction to
Congress as in the judgment of the legislature can constitu-
tionally be provided, for securing and perpetuating as well
such exempt jurisdiction, as any corporate rights, which the
legislature may judge proper to grant to congress.’’! This appli-
cation was formally granted by the legislature.
On the 22d of September, upon the suggestion of William
Floyd and Alexander Hamilton, delegates of the state in con-
gress, the grant was increased to two square miles. The 12th
day of May, 1783, the corporation of Annapolis, Maryland,
adopted a resolution which recited that “it being represented
to the corporation that the welfare and interests of the
United States requires that congress should have a fixed place
of residence with jurisdiction and executive and judicial
powers over the same and over all persons inhabiting and re-
siding within the district,” it was decided that the citizens be
consulted at a meeting, May 14, 1783, to ascertain whether
they would agree to make an offer to congress of land, “and
consent to be subject to such powers and jurisdiction.” A
unanimous approval was voted.
The corporation then invoked the aid of the legislature to
authorize the tender by the town of 300 acres. By resolution
of May 25, 1783, the Maryland house of delegates acceded
to this request, and in communicating to congress this offer
mentioned among other advantages of Annapolis for such
a purpose that it “is more central than any other city or
1The same. The resolution of the legislature and the action of the
town authorities are preserved in the papers of the continental con-
gress, in the library of congress, also the action of the Maryland, New
Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania legislatures of the same period.
2 History of Annapolis. E.S. Riley, 1887.
6 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
town in the federal states.” It was recommended that the
general assembly present “the state-house and public circle
in the city of Annapolis (exclusive of the schoolhouse and court-
house of Ann Arundel County, and the loan office standing in
the said circle) to the Honorable Congress for their use.”
Also that it was the unanimous opinion of the house that
the “General Assembly present to Congress the building and
grounds in the said city appropriated for the residence of the
governor of their state for the habitation of their President.
. . . that it offers to Congress to erect at the expense of the
state thirteen dwellings for the residence of the delegates of
each of the thirteen confederated states, and that a sum not to
exceed 30,000 pounds be applied for that purpose.” !
The next day this action was approved by the state senate,
and May 30, congress was formally notified. Such an offer
was referred to in the proceedings of the continental congress of
June 4, 1783, and at that time it was directed to be sent with
the Kingston offer to the executives of the various states with
a notice that in the following October the matter would be
considered by congress.
In the event congress should “make choice of any part of the
state of New Jersey for the place of the permanent residence,”
the New Jersey legislature on the 19th of June, 1783, declared
the state “will invest them with such jurisdiction, authority and
power over a district of twenty square miles as may be required
by congress, as necessary for the honor, dignity, convenience
and safety of that august body.” The state further agreed to
grant 30,000 pounds in specie “for the purpose of procuring
lands and erecting buildings thereon for the suitable accommo-
dation of Congress.”
This offer was accompanied by the tender of a site by the
freeholders and inhabitants of the western part of the township
of Nottingham in the county of Burlington, and at the head
of the navigation of the Delaware River. The resolution of
the township authorities June 16, 1783, recites that “it appears
consistent with the welfare and true interests of the United
? Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 46, p. 15.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE. MOVEMENT 7
States that Congress should have a fixed place of residence
with jurisdiction and certain powers within the same, and,
whereas, we have been informed that great offers have been made
by the States of New York and Maryland to induce Congress
to make their respective states the permanent residence, etc.”
Further, they offer “to subject ourselves to such exempt juris-
diction as they may, in their wisdom, think proper to grant.” 4
A few days later the state of Virginia sent in its tender dated
June 28, 1783, when by action of its legislature it offered the
town of Williamsburg to congress and to “present the palace,
the capitol, and all the public buildings, and 300 acres of land
adjoining the said city, together with a sum of money not
exceeding 100,000 pounds this states currency, to be expended
in erecting thirteen hotels for the use of the delegates in Con-
gress.”
“Also,” it is stipulated, “‘ the state will cede a district con-
tiguous to the said city not exceeding five miles square with such
exempt jurisdiction within the said limits as the inhabitants
residing therein shall consent to yield to congress.”
The legislature also offered to cede a like district at any
place on the Potomac and to appropriate a sum not to exceed
100,000 pounds for erecting said hotels and will also purchase
100 acres of land for the purpose of erecting public buildings. It
is further stipulated that Virginia will unite with the state
of Maryland and cede land opposite to that ceded by Maryland
on the Potomac, but in the event congress locates on the north
side, its proportion would be 40,000 pounds, Maryland to supply
the deficiency.
The prominence given to the right of jurisdiction conferred
on congress in all these offers stands out in striking contrast
to the omission to place any emphasis, except in the case of
Annapolis, on the locations in their geographical relations to
the rest of the country. In the subsequent consideration
covering a period of some seven years, this relation of the two
great phases of the subject, namely, jurisdiction and geography,
was completely reversed and the tide of debate was almost
1 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 46, p. 35.
8 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
entirely confined to the latter. Such a result was due to the
general acquiescence in the proposition that congress should
have powers of that character. On the other hand, the location
of the residence stirred a variety of conflicting interests and
aroused the strong feeling of distrust and jealousy that marked
the attitude of the agricultural states south of the Susquehanna,
and of the states to the north, where commerce and trade was
a growing interest. Where the seat of government should
be permanently located was finally fought out on lines that
separated the northern from the southern states, and precisely
about in the same latitude where nearly three quarters of a
century later the line of cleavage came that arrayed on opposite
sides the hostile hosts of the Civil War.
The first mention in the annals of the national legislature of
the subject of a permanent residence, as the popular phrase
came to be, although Madison objected to the word permanent,
for he said, “our acts are not those of the Medes and Persians,
unalterable,’’ is in the record of the action of congress of June 4,
1783, relative to the tenders from New York and Maryland
of sites for the proposed national capital. A day in October was
named when the subject would be considered, but before that
time arrived, an event occurred which provided what was
looked upon in that day as a forcible illustration of the im-
portance and necessity of making congress at the seat of govern-
ment independent of any other authority. The aptness of
this experience as an illustration is shown by the emphasis
placed upon it in the subsequent discussions, but as will be
brought out as the narrative proceeds, the jurisdiction question
was not at any time one of the contested issues in contemporary
thought, nor did it evoke any serious opposition.
The event in question was the gathering of soldiers of the
Pennsylvania line about the state house in Philadelphia when
congress was in session for the purpose of enforcing their
claims for pay long overdue. The discontent in the army,
which had been for a year and a half inactive following the
armed truce which practically began after the battle of York-
town, was general.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 9
The disbandment of the army by furloughs had begun, al-
though the British had not evacuated New York. But there
was no money to pay the men, and it was imperative that
further demands upon the slender resources of the government
should be cut off as rapidly as possible. The situation of the
army was desperate, officers and men alike saw only the dismal
prospect of leaving the service without the pay due them and
in debt, and they felt their services were deserving of at least
the pay to which they were justly entitled. There were other
creditors besides the soldiers, those who furnished supplies to
the army and had in other ways exchanged their commodities
for the promises of the government or rather of congress.
The latter body went to the extent of its powers to procure the
means to satisfy the public creditors by calling on the states
to pay their quota. But this appeal had not been heeded.
The Pennsylvania troops in the barracks in Philadelphia
had, early in June, 1783, expressed their discontent by presenting
a petition to congress to which that body made no response.
The feeling was quieted down by the influence of some of the
members of congress, who personally went to the barracks
and conferred with the soldiers. This had hardly been accom-
plished when a number of soldiers of the Pennsylvania line in
barracks at Lancaster, mutinied, and in spite of the commands
and the entreaties of their officers, started for Philadelphia
to demand from congress the money that was due them. The
assertion was freely made at the time that the outbreaks both
at Philadelphia and Lancaster were encouraged by the creditor
class, generally, with the view of bringing such pressure to bear
upon the national legislature as would result in forcing some
provision for the payment of all claims against the government.
The mutineers left Lancaster, June 17, 1783, in command of
a sergeant. Forty men dropped out while en route and eighty
men were in the ranks when Philadelphia was reached. They
were welcomed by their comrades of the Pennsylvania 20th
Infantry, who shared with them their barracks.
The news of this movement had been brought to the city and
to congress, and it was announced that the soldiers intended
10 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
to demand justice of congress, and it was also intimated they
had designs upon the bank. On the day before the arrival
of the soldiers in Philadelphia, congress appointed a committee
to confer with the executive council of the state of Pennsyl-
vania in session in the same building. The result was disap-
pointing, as the council refused to provide any protection against
this threatened attack on the ground that the militia of Phila-
delphia would probably not be willing to take up arms “before
their resentment should be provoked by some actual outrage.”’
The committee, as Madison reports, was much displeased,
and intimated that if the city would not support congress, it was
high time to remove to some other place.'
On the 21st of June, the day after their arrival, the Lancaster
contingent, reénforced by the men stationed at the barracks,
the total strength being between 250 and 300 men, fully armed,
proceeded to the state-house and surrounded that building
where both congress and executive council of the state were in
session. Another appeal for protection was made on behalf
of congress to the state authorities, but without avail.
As it turned out, however, the soldiers attempted no violence,
occasionally an individual among them used offensive words
and pointed a musket at the windows of the halls of congress.
In the language of a committee of congress they made “a
disorderly and menacing appearance.” When night came the
soldiers went away, and congress, after having endeavored to
preserve such remnants of its dignity as were left by remaining
in session, decided, when it adjourned, to meet in Princeton,
N.J., which it did some eight days later.
The president of congress, Elias Boundinot, in writing to his
brother, said the council lacked backbone to call out the militia.
He also adds that the politicial manceuvres in connection
with the question of federal residence which was to be settled
the coming fall were “unhinging grounds.” ? It was also said
that the citizens considered the soldiers objects of pity rather
1 Madison’s Reports of Debates in the Congress of the Confederation,
Vol. 2, p. 92.
2 Continental Congress at Princeton. Thomas L. Collins.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT iy
than chastisement, and hence the doubt of the disposition of the
militia.
Three days after the occurrence, congress left the city to meet
in Princeton the 26th of June, and then apparently the full
results of the spirit of indifference or hostility on the part of
citizens of Philadelphia and the authorities of the state began
to be realized, for it was quite evident that whatever else might
happen, neither the city nor the state wished to lose congress.
Independent of advantage of proximity to the seat of govern-
ment of the United States, its presence meant a revenue esti-
mated at $100,000 per annum.
As early as July 2, 1783, less than a week after congress
convened in Princeton, an effort was made to induce it to
return to Philadelphia, but that body declined on the ground
that it had been grossly insulted by armed soldiers, and that
repeated applications without avail had been made to the execu-
tive council of Pennsylvania for protection. At that time the
executive council took the place of a state legislature.”
General Washington characterized the mutineers as “recruits
and soldiers of a day who have not borne the heat and burden
of the war, and who can have in reality very few hardships to
complain of.’’ 3
The day after congress left the city, the executive council
decided to call out a guard. The leaders of the mutiny vanished,
and the Lancaster contingent yielded and marched back to
Lancaster. As the result of a court-martial, held by direction
of General Washington to try those charged with complicity
in this affair, two men were sentenced to death and four to
receive corporal punishment, but all the convicted men were
pardoned by congress.
The first and immediate result of the Philadelphia affair
was to change the seat of government, or rather the meeting
place of congress, as owing to the lack of sufficient buildings
1 Ezra L. Hommedieu, member of congress from New York state
to Governor Clinton, Aug. 15, 1783. Quoted by Collins.
2 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 36, Vol. 2, pp. 163 and
165.
? Washington Letters. June 24, 1783. Sparks, Vol. 8, p. 545.
12 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the offices of the government and its records did not follow
congress in its flight. But the executive offices and the public
archives were at that time a mere detail in comparison with
congress, for the presence of that body and those who had
business before it, constituted what was locally the important
element in the seat of government. This shifting of the meeting
place was the more marked, as with the exception of periods
covering about two years, Philadelphia had been the capital
city of the confederacy from the first session of congress in 1774
down to this time, a period of some nine years. Had it not
been for the exigencies of the war, which made Philadelphia
unsafe, it is not likely congress would have met in Baltimore,
Lancaster and York, as it did at intervals during those two
years.
The rest of the session of that year was completed in Prince-
ton, and at the date of the next session in November, 1783,
congress assembled at Annapolis, and in November, 1784, con-
vened in Trenton, N.J. and two months later met in New York
City, where it remained until it was succeeded by the congress
of the constitution that held its first session there in the spring of
1789.
In the year and a half after leaving Philadelphia, congress
sat in three places, but this moving about, which can in part be
attributed to the lack of accommodations and to the consequent
discomfort and inconvenience to the members, and which ex-
tended over a comparatively short space of time, was regarded
as evidence of weakness in the government.
In the course of the debate in the convention which framed
the constitution, it was declared by one of the speakers that
“muteability of place had dishonored the Federal government.”
In fact, later on in the consideration of the residence site the
effect on the government of having no established centre was
used as an argument for a prompt determination of a question
that was, from this point of view alone, regarded as of supreme
consequence.
In Philadelphia, congress occupied the building now known
as Independence Hall, and then used both by the municipal and
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 13
state authorities, for Philadelphia, like New York, was at that
time the capital of the state. A room in Nassau Hall, Princeton
College was used during the stay of congress in Princeton and
was ample for the deliberations of a body with an average
attendance of twenty-two. But there were deficiencies in
other respects. Madison records that at Princeton the mem-
bers were crowded too much either for comfort or to carry on
the public business with advantage. “We were extremely
put to, to get any quarters at all,” he writes. “Dr. Jones and
I are put into one bed in a room not more than ten feet square.”’ !
“Without a single accommodation for writing,’ he stated
to Jefferson, “save in a position that scarcely admits the use
of my limbs.”’ He calls attention to another inconvenience,
which was no doubt experienced by more members of congress
than the lack of facilities for writing. ‘‘ In any small place,’’
he confides to Randolph, ‘‘Congress is too dependent on cour-
tesy and favor to be exempt either in their persons or their
sensibility from degrading impositions.’’ The influence on
such a place as Princeton by the meeting there of congress
is clearly brought out in a letter by J. A. Alexander, who says,
‘‘instead of the silence of a country hamlet, now nothing is to
be heard but the passing and rattle of wagons, coaches and
chaises.”’ The streets echo, he adds, with unfamiliar “ crying
about of pineapples, oranges, Jemons and every luxurious
article, both foreign and domestic.’’ ?
Upon the invitation of congress, which wished to consult
him, General Washington came from the army headquarters at
Newburg and established himself at Rocky Hill, four or five
miles from Princeton. Inwriting from there September 11, 1783,
to Governor Clinton, he expresses doubt whether there will be
any improvement in the attendance of members while congress
remains at Princeton. “The want of accommodation,” he says,
“added to a disinclination of the southern delegates to be
further removed than they formerly were from the centre of
1 James Madison to Edmund Randolph, Aug. 30, 1783.
2 Life of J. A. Alexander. Vol. 1, p. 16, by H. C. Alexander.
Quoted by Collins.
14 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the empire and an aversion in the others to give up what they
conceived to be a point gained by the late retreat to this place
keeps matters in an awkward situation to the very great inter-
ruption of national affairs. Seven states, it is said, will never
agree’’ [to a plan for a federal seat].
The affair at Philadelphia was not merely one of a day to be
lost in the current of other transactions. It helped in per-
manently shaping the policy of the government towards the
army, and such policy of course reflected the sentiment of the
day, which strangely enough, as it now appears, was distrust of
the men who had endured the privations and the perils of
military duties in the service of a government that was both
weak and poor.
This attitude of the public at the close of the revolutionary
war was confirmed by what appeared to be a tendency in
military circles to the assertion of authority. The tone of
the Newburg address in the spring of 1783, the Philadelphia
affair and the formation of the Society of Cincinnati with
the hereditary feature, subsequently done away with, ex-
plains in part the unreasonable public opinion hostile to the
army and the strong feeling against a standing army, which
was potent in keeping the permanent organization down to a
mere handful.
While a day in October had been agreed upon for considering
the matter of choosing a place for the permanent seat, yet such
was the interest taken in the subject of the abiding place for
congress, whether temporary or permanent, that efforts began
early in the session at Princeton to agree as to when the next
session should be held. But in the midst of the discussion of
this phase, the question was raised as to the jurisdiction
proper for congress to exercise over the place of the permanent
residence. A committee was appointed to report upon this
subject, of which Mr. Madison was a member. A report was
submitted, September 18, 1783, which gave conclusions upon two
points. First, the extent of the district necessary; second,
the powers to be exercised by congress in that district. As
to the first, the committee reported that a district ceded and
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 15
accepted ought not to exceed six or be less than three miles
square, and second, that congress ought to have exclusive
jurisdiction.}
This report was referred to the committee of the whole,
but there is no record that any further action was taken. In
the papers of the continental congress there are two documents
evidently intended as amendments, but their place and purpose
are not indicated in any way. In one of the papers the principle
is laid down that such a district “ought to be entirely exempted
from the authority of the state ceding the same and, the or-
ganization and administration of the powers of government
within the said district concentrated between Congress and the
inhabitants thereof.” The other paper prescribes that the
state or states ceding the territory “should give up all jurisdic-
tion whatsoever ... that the appointment of judges and the
executive power within the said territory shall vest in Congress ;
. . . that the citizens should enjoy the privilege of trial by jury
and of being governed by laws made by representatives of their
own election.”
Madison, in commenting on the situation, speaks of “the
puzzling question as to the precise jurisdiction of Congress over
the permanent seat.” ”
The origin of the idea of jurisdiction is purely a matter of
conjecture. The first recorded mention is, as stated, in the
tender of a location at Kingston by the New York state legis-
lature, March 14, 1783, and the same authority is conferred in
the offers made by Maryland of Annapolis, by New Jersey of a
location in any portion of the state and by Virginia of Williams-
burg. It is also found in the subsequent offer from the state
of Pennsylvania’ of Germantown, and of the several sites pro-
posed in New Jersey.
It is possible, as Alexander Hamilton evidently advised with
the promoters of the Kingston location, that the suggestion of
conferring such territorial powers upon the general government
1 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 23, p. 149.
2 Madison Papers. Vol. 1. Letter to Edmund Randolph, Aug. 30,
1783.
16 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
came from him, and it certainly is in harmony with his concep-
tion of what the new government should be.
The three tenders, first mentioned, were made prior to the
affair at Philadelphia, which resulted in the hasty adjournment
of that body to Princeton, and while there is no doubt that the
occurrence supplied a convincing argument in support of con-
ferring such powers upon congress, it did not originate the
idea. When the actual discussion of the permanent residence
question began in congress in October, 1783, it is quite evident
from the accounts of the debate which are available, meagre as
they are, that the jurisdiction phase of the matter was not the
important one. The utility and wisdom of such a provision
appears to have been generally conceded. As this first debate
on the residence site went on in congress during the October
days of 1783, it was soon manifest that the southern members
favored the Potomac. A location on that river, they asserted,
would be geographically the centre of the United States, at
least as far south as Georgetown. They claimed for their
section in this matter the consideration of justice and equality.
A further argument advanced was that the trade of Europe
must be drawn to that part where congress resides. Hence
by moving southward the progress of population must increase
in these states.!
According to Madison, “the competition for the permanent
seat lay between the falls of the Potomac and those of the
Delaware.” He had hoped from the views of the eastern
delegates that they would have given a preference to the Po-
tomac, but he said they joined with Pennsylvania and the
intermediate states, in favor of the Delaware.”
The hopes of the southern states were not realized, and on the
7th of October congress decided to fix the permanent seat on
the Delaware near the falls above Trenton. A committee was
named to visit the proposed location and make a report, and this
duty was performed. Two weeks later congress decided that
in addition to a location on the Delaware, there should also be a
1 North Carolina State Records. Vol. 16, p. 908.
2 Madison to Edmund Randolph, Oct. 13, 1783.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 17
national capital at or near the lower falls of the Potomac at
Georgetown, and this resolution, presented October 17, 1783,
is the first mention on record of the location where the capital
was finally placed. It was explained by Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, who offered the resolution, that congress had
no prospect of a general assent to any one place and that there
is every reason to expect that providing buildings for the
alternate residence of congress in two places will be productive
of the most salutary effects by securing the mutual confidence
and affection of the states and preserving the federal balance
of power.!
At the same time the geographical balance was adhered to in
the further provision that until the buildings at the two places
are ready the sessions of congress should be held alternately
at Annapolis and at Trenton.
An interesting light is thrown upon the hidden causes of
this curious turn in the comments of Elias Boudinot, the presi-
dent of congress, who wrote to Robert Livingston, October 23,
1783, that the southern members were notified of the choice of
the falls of the Delaware. “They have manceuvred in such a
manner as to take in the eastern members so completely as to
get them (Mr. Gerry at their head) to conform entirely to their
views, taking advantage of the absence of Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Delaware, hastily passed a vote for two places of
residence and fixed the other at or near Georgetown on the
Potomac and the temporary residence alternately year about at
Annapolis and Trenton till their buildings are erected.” ”
The date of October 17, 1783, is not only that of the first re-
corded mention of the place ultimately selected, unless the
general description of a site on the Potomac in the Maryland
tender, a few months previously, can be considered as having
the Georgetown location in view, but itis also the date of the
first enactment by congress requiring the surrender by the
states of territorial jurisdiction over the federal site.
1 Journals of Congress, Oct. 17, 1783. Vol. 8.
2 Lenox Library, Livingston papers, 1777-1799, p. 945. Quoted
by Collins.
VoL. I—c
18 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The provision made for two capitals, one at Georgetown
near the falls of the Potomac and the other just below the falls
of the Delaware, proved to be only a temporary advantage for
the southern minority and the allies they had secured from the
New England states. The law was carried out only so far as
the temporary residence was concerned. Congress held the
next session in Annapolis, and about two months of the following
session in Trenton, New Jersey. The plan of having two capi-
tals was not well received, and the spirit of some of the criticisms
of the day has been preserved in the satirical effusions of Francis
Hopkinson. In one of these the suggestion was made that
there should be only one federal town but two places of resi-
dence, and that the former was to be on a platform supported
on wheels which could be moved from place to place. He
expanded this whimsical idea in the statement that the statue of
Washington, which was authorized at the same session, was to
be placed on wheels, so that it could go where congress went.
The double capital idea was abandoned by the legislation of
December 23, 1784, which was enacted during the session held
in Annapolis. While no definite result was reached during the
time spent in Annapolis, which followed the meeting at Prince-
ton, still it was declared in a resolution offered, April 26, 1784,
at that session, that the act providing for a federal site on
the Potomac had been virtually repealed.
From the tone of the same resolution it is evident that the
committee appointed to visit the Potomac had been notified
to take no steps in the matter until further instructed by con-
gress. Buta report was made, as there is a record in the pro-
ceedings of the house of July 6, 1790, that a report “of a com-
mittee appointed by the old congress to view the banks of the
Potomac”’ was presented. This report has not been preserved,
as is the case with that of the committee authorized to inspect
the Delaware site.?
1 At this session Mr. Jefferson endeavored without success to secure
consent to a resolution providing that the following session be held at
Alexandria, Va.
2 Papers of the Continental Congress.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 19
As stated by Mr. Boudinot, advantage was taken of the
absence of members to push the double residence plan through.
Only seven states were represented, but all voted for the meas-
ure, in furtherance of an agreement the nature of which is not
known.
The law of December 23, 1784, passed at the next session in
Trenton, providing for a capital city of a nation that had won its
independence but which had not shown its ability to frame
an effective and strong system of government, can only be re-
garded as an instance of supreme confidence that the nation
was to be enduring, for the convention which drafted the con-
stitution was still three years off and the vital weakness of the
confederacy was each day growing more apparent. Still, the
delegates of the states, possessing no power to raise revenue or
to enforce their will upon the individual states and hardly
able to secure a quorum, enacted a measure to erect buildings
for the use of congress, and with that in view provided for the
appointment of three commissioners to lay out a district of not
less than two and not more than three miles square on the banks
of the Delaware near the falls for a federal town. Authority
was given to purchase as much land as might be necessary to
erect “in an elegant manner” a house for the accommodation
of congress, and houses for the residences of the president of
congress, and for the heads of departments; and to secure the
means to do this, the commissioners were empowered to draw
on the treasury of the United States for a sum not exceeding
$100,000. No attempt was made to carry out this law, except
the appointment of commissioners.
Congress did not again resume consideration of this subject
until some two years later, when an effort was made which
failed, to substitute the falls of the Potomac for the proposed
site on the Delaware. By that time the movement towards
the coming together of the delegates that were to form the con-
vention which framed the constitution was well under way.
On the 21st of February, 1787, a resolution was adopted by
congress calling such a convention, and on the 17th of September
of the same year, the constitution was transmitted to congress
20 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
by the convention, and the former body submitted it to the
states for their action.
Upon the ratification of that instrument, the duty devolved
upon congress of selecting a place where the new body should
meet for the purpose of putting the government into operation.
A provision for a district under the exclusive legislation of con-
gress, and ten miles square, which should be the seat of the
government, was made a part of the constitution and appears
among the enumerated powers of congress. The jurisdiction
phase had apparently been accepted from the beginning of the
consideration of the subject as essential and desirable, but as
has been pointed out, the grounds for such a conclusion can
only be inferred.
The precise area of the proposed federal district had not
previously been determined, and the reasons for the conclusion
reached in that particular, as well as those in general, for forming
such a district with exclusive powers over it vested in congress
were apparently not largely considered during the deliberation
of the constitutional convention. But what has been preserved
of the discussions in that body on the federal district shows
clearly that the affront received by congress at Philadelphia
was looked upon as sufficient to demonstrate that the dignity
and safety of the national body could not be left to the discre-
tion of state legislatures.
The first mention of the section relating to the district in
the constitution is in the draft submitted by Charles Pinckney
of Maryland on the 29th of May, 1787, three months after the
convention began its session, and when it had nearly half com-
pleted the seven months of its existence. The wording of the
clause as it appears in the Pinckney draft is the same as that
which forms a part of the constitution. Congress shall have
power, it runs, “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)
as may, by cession by particular states and the acceptance by
Congress, become the seat of government of the United States
and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by
the consent of the legislature in which the same shall be, for
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT pA
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and
other needful buildings, and to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the fore-
going power vested by this constitution in the government of
the United States or in any department or officer thereof.”
Three months after this clause had been brought to the atten-
tion of the convention it was adopted, and so recorded without
debate.
As is well known, the Pinckney draft of the constitution that
has been preserved is not the original document, but as it came
from the committee with all amendments and alterations. It
is therefore impossible to trace the authorship of the clause
relating to the district, as slight attention was given to this
section by the various state conventions that ratified it or by
the body from which that instrument emanated. In only
four out of the thirteen state conventions was the subject of
the federal district discussed, and these were North Carolina,
Virginia, New York and Massachusetts.
The strict adherents of the sovereign powers of the states or
rather those most fearful of creating a government capable of
exercising despotic power and who were delegates to the con-
ventions of North Carolina and Virginia, rather balked at the
idea of a territory where congress was the only and the supreme
lawmaker. In such a district, they asserted, the state laws
could be set aside, and there violators of state authority could
find asanctuary. There, exclaimed one of the speakers, tyranny
can get a foothold, and there special privileges of trade might
be enjoyed by resident merchants, tending to centre commerce
there and discriminating against those engaged in trade outside
of such favored district.
But the emphasis was placed by the advocates of this clause on
the vital need of having the federal city in a territory where the
general government would be sovereign and the few objections
raised to the creation of such a district were apparently looked
upon as highly theoretical. It may also be noted that the argu-
ment for independent jurisdiction was largely based upon the
affair in Philadelphia. In fact, it was asserted by one of the
22 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Virginia convention delegates, that the idea of exclusive legis-
lation had its origin in that insult to congress.
Nor was this grant of power considered of sufficient conse-
quence to claim the attention of any one of the three expositors
of the constitution whose papers were brought together under
the title of The Federalist, with the solitary exception of Madi-
son. In No. XLIII, he devoted a page to this clause which he
justifies on the ground of “The indispensable necessity of com-
plete authority at the seat of government,’’ and adds as to the
effect upon the political rights of the citizens of the district
“as it is to be appropriated to their use, with the consent of the
State ceding it, as the State will no doubt provide in the compact
for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it;
as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducement of interest to
become willing partners to this cession; as they will have had
their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise
authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local pur-
poses, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed
them; . . . every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.”
The last four years of the existence of the continental con-
gress were spent in New York City. The members had an
opportunity of witnessing the recovery of the city from the
effects of the war and its rapid growth, as they had come there
in the opening month of 1785, just a little more than a year
after the evacuation by the British army, bringing to a close
an occupation that had lasted seven years and had left the
city partly in ruins. More than half of the 25,000 souls that
comprised the population in 1776 had disappeared.
But when the continental congress decided to meet there,
the city hall, which had been used by the British as a prison
and was in a dilapidated condition, was restored and fitted up
for the use of that body. When the news came of the adoption
of the constitution, and with the hope that New York was to
be the place where the new government was to be set in motion,
the city hall building was torn down and on its site now occupied
by the subtreasury building in Wall Street, the city fathers
resolved to provide a building worthy of the occasion.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 23
The motives for this civic spirit may not have been entirely
unmixed, for had not the population grown to 30,000, and had
not the city prospered? All this prosperity was not attributed
to the presence of congress, but still merely as a business propo-
sition it was recognized that the national body was a valuable
asset ; at any rate, a building was proposed that was to exceed
in beauty and impressiveness anything of the sort to be found
in the country.
To Pierre Charles L’Enfant, late a major in the engineer
corps of the revolutionary army, was intrusted the designing
and construction of the building, and when in the following
spring of 1789 the members of the first congress assembled in
New York, they found themselves amidst surroundings which
for elegance and beauty had never before been experienced by
the assembled representatives of the people. There were
arches and classic columns, marble pavements and painted
ceilings, crimson damask canopies and hangings, while a portico
with its arcaded front and a highly decorated pediment were
the features of an exterior that was pronounced to be really
magnificent. But owing to the speed with which the building
was erected and the quarrels between the architect and con-
tractors, bad.work resulted, and in a few years the building
was torn down.
As this is the first appearance in the story of the rise and
development of a nation’s capital city of one whose name is
inseparably connected with it, and as it was his first employ-
ment of consequence after leaving the continental army, it may
be well to give the sequel of his relations with the New York
City authorities. The characteristics of this gifted but eccentric
man were exhibited in that affair in much the same fashion as
in all the engagements of like nature in subsequent years.
As a remuneration for his services in connection with the
building, the city authorities offered L’Enfant $750 or a grant
of city lots and the freedom of the city. Claiming that this
was entirely inadequate, he declined the offer."
1The Story of a Street. Frederick T. Hill. Harper’s, July and
September, 1908.
24 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
At that time L’Enfant had been in this country twelve years.
He shared in the enthusiasm which the struggle for liberty
aroused in the ardent minds of so many of his gallant country-
men, especially those in the French army. He was born,
August 2, 1754, in Paris, the son of Pierre L’Enfant, “ Painter
in ordinary to the King in his manufacture of Gobelins,” and
member of the Academy of Fine Arts.!
At the age of twenty-three he was serving as brevet lieutenant
of French colonial troops. Then in company with eight of his
compatriots he came to America and offered his services to the
colonies. He arrived in this country in the summer of 1777,
several months before Lafayette reached these shores, and land-
ing at Charleston, went to Philadelphia.’
He joined the continental army as a volunteer and at his
own expense, and then on April 30, 1779, was made captain,
corps of engineers, to rank from the 18th of February.?
He was wounded in a gallant forward movement at the as-
sault on Savannah and was made a prisoner, May 12, 1780, at
the siege of Charleston and was exchanged in November of
that year. He served in the army to the close of the war.
On the 25th of May, 1783, he was made brevet major of engineers
by congress, evidently through the good offices of General
Washington, as indicated in a letter of March 4, 1782, from
Washington to Captain L’Enfant, in which the former stated
he had been “favored with a letter from you on the 13th of
February. I am sensible how disagreeable it is to have an
inferior officer promoted over your head and am sorry it is not
in my power to remedy it. The promotion of Major Roche-
fontaine was a matter in which I had not the least interference.
It took place solely on the recommendation of General Du-
1 Address of J. J. Jusserand, April 28, 1909, on occasion of the
reinterment of L’Enfant’s remains. Also letter of Jusserand to the
commissioners of the district (Evening Star, March 13, 1912) in which
he states the elder L’Enfant was ‘‘a painter of fame in his day’’ and
some of his pictures of French battles of the time of Louis XV had
recently been placed on exhibition in the palace at Versailles.
2 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 78, Vol. 7, p. 115.
* Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army. Heitman.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 20
portail, who, I believe, represented to Congress that it was the
practice of all nations after a successful siege to promote the
engineer who had contributed to the success.”’
“Your zeal and action are such as to reflect the highest
honor on yourself and are extremely pleasing to me and I have
no doubt they will have their due weight with Congress in any
future promotion in your Corps.’’!
A month after he had been thus honored by the American
congress, the French government, in consideration of the use-
fulness of his services during the war in America, granted him
a pension of 300 livres.
At the close of the war L’Enfant made a visit to his home in
France. While there, he organized a branch of the Society of
the Cincinnati and had executed the design for the emblem of
the order which he had drawn. He returned to America in
the course of a few months, as he had decided to join his for-
tunes with that of the new country, “having been persuaded,”
he stated in a letter to the president of congress, dated Phila-
delphia, December 15, 1784, in which he urged the necessity of
the establishment of a corps of engineers, ‘“‘under the expec-
tation of rendering my services once more acceptable to the
United States.”” He adds, “Having been led to expect that
such an establishment would take place, I should now be
doubly disappointed if it should not, as by remaining here |
have lost the opportunity of getting employment in my own
country, from which I have been the more encouraged to ab-
sent myself as Brigadier-General Rosseinaska at leaving this
continent gave me the flattering expectation of being at the
head of a department in which, if successful, I shall endeavor
to render service agreeable to the United States and make it
a duty to seize every opportunity of giving testimony of the
faithfulness with which I shall exert myself to contribute to
her happiness and prosperity.” ?
The memorial accompanying this letter consists of ten closely
written folio pages, and is a characteristic L’Enfant production,
1 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 78, Vol. 14, p. 535.
2The same. No. 78, Vol. 14, p. 579.
26 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
prolix as well as confused in expression, due no doubt in part to
the author’s using a foreign language. He presents a plan for
the organization of an engineer corps and points out the de-
fenceless condition of the coasts, the need of a navy to protect
the commerce and of a permanent military establishment.
At the outset L’Enfant refers to “The hardships I have under-
gone while in the field and in captivity.” Appended are ob-
servations upon the qualifications and duties of an engineer and
the details for the formation of a battalion of sappers and
miners. This voluminous communication reveals the man as
he is shown in his later relations with practical affairs, his head
in the clouds, unconscious as to whether or not his feet rested
on the solid ground. There is the same disparity between
means and ends in this project of army organization, as in his
later management of city affairs, a total ignoring of the hostile
public sentiment of the day towards the army as well as of
the uncertain and meagre resources of the government.
A glimpse of his associates at this time may be had from a
letter written by L’Enfant, dated New York, November 7, 1785,
to Charles Thomson, secretary of congress. It was in behalf
of the artist Houdon, and in reply to some inquiry made as to
the cost of the intended equestrian statue of General
Washington.?
The next record in his career is his employment as architect
of the city hall building in New York City. In addition to
provision for the accommodation of congress, the city authori-
ties also began the erection down by the Battery of a residence
for the president of the United States. But after a stay of a
year and a half in New York, the seat of government was re-
moved to Philadelphia, and the house intended for the president
was never occupied by that official. The outcome of the re-
newed discussion in the old congress, as the continental body
came to be known after the adoption of the constitution, of
the residence question, which took the wide range of the choice
of a permanentas well asa temporary location, was the naming
of New York City as the meeting-place of the new congress.
1 Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 78, Vol. 14, p. 677.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT raf
The other phase of the question was left as a heritage to the new
body.
From the tenor of the resolutions offered during this closing
period of the discussion, it is evident that while the delegates
were not united on any one place, yet the sentiment in favor
of centrality was strong enough practically to restrict the area
of selection considered to the section bounded on the north
and the south by the Delaware and the Potomac rivers.
There was another consideration which had weight; namely,
that changes in the meeting-place of congress, pending the
solution of a permanent seat, should be avoided, for as it was
expressed later on, after congress had been for some time
fixed in New York, changes are “an indication of instability
in the national councils, and therefore highly injurious to the
interests as well as derogatory to the dignity of the United
States.” }
With many new and perplexing problems confronting it in
connection with the task of setting in operation the balanced
machinery of the new form of government, the first congress
under the constitution, which began its deliberations in New
York City in April, 1789, gave long and careful consideration
to the residence subject. But first a tariff bill was framed to
provide revenues for the support of the government and also
to give protection to the infant industries of the country.
Executive departments were created, and amendments to the
newly made constitution were agreed upon. Plans for the
funding of the public debt and the assumption of state debts,
for the disposal of the public lands and for a judicial system were
yet to be finally acted upon, and in some cases even to be con-
sidered.
In the midst of this important work and at the opening of
the last month of the session, the residence matter was brought
up. At once protests were heard, and it was urged that ques-
tions of more consequence were pressing for attention. Be-
sides, it was pointed out, the revenues of the government were
as yet unknown, and it was unwise to undertake at that time
1 Journals of Congress. Aug. 5, 1788.
28 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
an expense that was not absolutely necessary. Were not
members comfortable in their present quarters? it was asked.
Were there any intimations that they were not welcome and
desired by the citizens of New York?
One of the members who saw no reason for taking up the sub-
ject at that time observed in a sarcastic vein that many parts
of the country appear extremely anxious to have congress
with them. “Trenton, Germantown, Carlisle, Lancaster,
York and Reading,” he said, “have sent us an abundance of
petitions setting forth various advantages. We wish the in-
habitants may enjoy the benefits of them, and if they are pleas-
antly situated and have plenty of fish, we are glad to hear it,
and if it should ever suit Congress to remove to any of them,
why Congress will enjoy the benefit of them also.” ?
But the southern members, led by Richard Bland Lee and
James Madison, delegates from Virginia, were insistent for
present consideration. They argued there was no question
more important, one in which all the people of the country
were as deeply interested and upon the proper settlement of
which rested the tranquillity and peace of the country and the
very existence of the government.
There is another reason given for the eagerness of the southern
members to settle the residence site at that time, and that was
their conviction that the decision was sure to be as they desired.
For an agreement had been made with some of the delegates
from Pennsylvania by which in consideration of their voting
for the Potomac, the temporary seat of government would be
at Philadelphia for fifteen years. But as it proved, this scheme
was overturned; a new combination was made. The eastern
men, by promising to let New York have the temporary capital,
secured the support of the delegates from that state and won
over the Pennsylvania men from their southern allies by agree-
ing to vote for the Susquehanna as the permanent seat !?
The advocates of immediate consideration, ignorant of this
change, had their way, and the subject was taken up. But
1 Annals of Congress. Ist Cong., Ist Sess., Aug. 26, 1789, p. 789.
? Works of Fisher Ames. Vol. 1. Boston, 1856.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 29
before the debate had been long under way the discovery was
made that their coalition had fallen to pieces. They sought
delay as eagerly as they had hitherto urged action. But it
was in vain, and the debate went on. Under these circum-
stances even the calm and philosophic Madison was led to
exclaim in his place in the house “if a prophet had arisen in
the Virginia convention that ratified the constitution and
brought the proceedings of this day into view, that I as firmly
believe Virginia might not have been a part of the Union at
this moment.” !
There is no record of the course of sentiment in the senate,
but it is quite clear from the debate in the house that the
Susquehanna and the Potomac were the chief rivals. The
exact localities in view were Georgetown, near the lower falls
of the Potomac, and Wrights Ferry, Pa., near the falls of the
Susquehanna and thirty-five miles from tide-water. It was
conceded that the former was considerably south of the centre
of population, but then that was a defect, it was urged, which
would be cured as the population increased.
Great stress was laid upon the importance of a location on a
navigable river far enough from the sea to be safe from hostile
attacks. But it was upon the means of communication with
the western country supplied by the rivers named that the
respective advocates of the rival localities chiefly relied for argu-
ments to win support. This phase of the question was one
peculiar to a time when in a country of vast distances the
rivers furnished the principal means of carrying on trade.
Some four years before, the Potomac Company, with General
Washington as its president, had been chartered by the joint
action of the states of Maryland and Virginia to overcome
the natural obstacles in the form of falls and rapids in the
Potomac by constructing canals. A company had been formed
in the year 1784 to perform a similar service in the case of the
Susquehanna River, but it never attained the importance of
the Potomac enterprise.
The movement for the improvement of the Potomac in its
1 Annals of Congress. Ist Cong., Ist Sess., p. 857.
30 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
effects had a much wider significance, for it was due to the
coming together of the delegates of the states of Virginia and
Maryland and the subsequent decision to bring into the con-
ference delegates from the state of Pennsylvania to unite in the
Potomac improvement that led to the conception of a conven-
tion of the states to take up the entire subject of trade between
the states with the view of getting rid of the harrassing and
injurious commercial regulations framed only in the interests
of individual states.
Then birth was given to the pregnant thought that if the
states met to consider trade relations, why should not the
vital and recognized defects of the articles of confederation be
also taken up. From this germ came the recommendation
of the Annapolis trade convention that congress call together
delegates from all the states to consider the subject of providing
a government adequate to the needs of the country. Such a
call was issued by congress in the spring of 1787, and a few
weeks later the convention that framed the constitution began
its great work in Philadelphia.
On the general topic of centrality, Madison in the course of
the debate on the residence bill in the house drew an argument
from the experience of the states. He said that in every instance
where the seat of government has been placed in an uncentral
portion, the spectacle has been witnessed of the people struggling
to place it where it ought to be. In many instances, he added,
they have gained their point, and in proof cited the cases of
the capitals of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Similar movements have been begun, he said, in Pennsylvania,
Delaware, New York and Massachusetts.
No more marked change in conditions has occurred than
that which has deprived completely of all force an argument
advanced by Madison based on the advantages derived from
merely being near to the seat of government. To those thus
situated, he said, will come an earlier knowledge of the laws, a
greater influence in enacting them and better opportunities
for anticipating them. “If it were possible,” he added, “to
promulgate laws, by some instantaneous operation, it would
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT Si
be of less consequence in that point of view where the govern-
ment might be placed.”
The pecuniary advantages to the locality chosen were also
touched upon, and on this phase Madison presumed that the
expenditures by those immediately connected in the adminis-
tration of the government and by others who may come there
will not be less than half a million a year.
The division in sentiment among the Maryland delegates,
as shown by the votes, was due mainly to the influence of
Baltimore, where it was realized that the improvement of the
Susquehanna River, so as to make it available for commerce,
would bring to its port on the Chesapeake Bay, thirty-seven
miles from the mouth of the river, much of the trade. It was
largely owing to the apprehension of the diversion of trade
away from Philadelphia and down the Susquehanna, that the
representatives of the state of Pennsylvania were not a unit,
some favoring the Delaware location and others the one on the
Susquehanna.
Robert Morris, who had large influence, favored the Delaware,
and especially a site near the falls of that river opposite Trenton,
where he had extensive property interests. He was willing,
however, to accept a place near Philadelphia, and his attitude,
no doubt, largely accounts for the course taken by the senate
in substituting the suburbs of that city for the location on the
Susquehanna.
One of the arguments advanced in favor of selecting a place
on the Susquehanna on the Pennsylvania side was that in the
event of a withdrawal from the union of the western country,
which was a matter of current talk, as the southern states
would also go with it, that the new capital city would be within
the territory of the northern section well away from its frontiers.
It was apparent almost from the start that the opposition
against such a southern location as that proposed on the Po-
tomac was not only united but numerically stronger than the
other side. Hence the trading recorded by Fisher Ames.
Much was said in the course of this first discussion in regard
to the possibilities of the navigation of the Potomac and the
32 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Susquehanna rivers and the proximity of their head waters
to the streams that emptied into the Monongahela and the
Allegheny rivers, forming a connection with the then means
of communication with the western country by the Ohio
River.
The forwardness of the work accomplished up to that time
by the Potomac Company was brought out by one of the
speakers, who said a vessel carrying twenty-four hogsheads of
tobacco had descended that river within thirteen miles of
Georgetown. Owing to the lack of knowledge of the immense
territory through which these rivers passed and also the lack
of a census, the statements made in regard to those regions,
as well as those relating to population, are defective.
It was quite evident that the feeling displayed by the southern
states on the residence question from the very outset was so
determined and intense that it had a decisive influence in limit-
ing the area of choice to a locality at or about what was then
regarded as the centre of the territory along the Atlantic sea-
board. The New England and the Middle states, with the
exception of Pennsylvania, were therefore eliminated on geo-
graphical grounds and the field of choice was recognized as
being within the bounds of Pennsylvania, Maryland and
Virginia. Another limitation was the general acquiescence
in the importance of selecting a site on a navigable river. As
has been pointed out, both Pennsylvania and Maryland were
divided in sentiment, as in each instance there were two locali-
ties within the bounds of the respective states which had
advocates.
While Virginia had in the beginning made an offer of Wil-
liamsburg with also a tentative suggestion of some site on
the Potomac, Alexandria having been proposed several years
before by Jefferson, yet it was apparently realized very early
that the first-named place was too far south, and then the
state stood unitedly and unwaveringly for the Potomac loca-
tion. In the preamble of the act of cession of a district on the
Potomac, enacted by the legislature of that state, December 3,
1789, the main arguments as subsequently advanced by the ad-
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 33
vocates of a southern residence site were stated. These were a
central situation “having regard as well for population, extent
of territory and a free navigation to the Atlantic as to the most
direct and ready communication with our fellow-citizens in
the western frontier.” These principles, which in the opinion
of the delegates from Virginia ought to govern in making a
choice in the location, were again set forth in a resolution
introduced in congress by Richard Bland Lee when the sub-
ject first came up.
It was further declared in this resolution that the banks of
the Potomac above tide-water would be a desirable site for the
capital. “Where,” it was added, “the states of Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia may participate in such a locality.”
In this provision is the germ of one clause of the law enacted
at the next session which named a section of the country some
sixty-six miles in length as the crow flies, where a location
might be selected. By making the proposed district tribu-
tary, as it were, to three states, but still on the Potomac, the
circle of interest in the general locality would be extended and
friends would be gained.!
Both houses of congress entered upon the consideration of
the residence question about the same time. The house
reached a decision first, after four full days of debate, and on
the 22d day of September, 1789, sent to the senate a bill naming
a site near the falls of the Susquehanna in the state of Pennsyl-
vania as the permanent place and New York City as the tem-
porary location.
This measure was amended in the senate by substituting
the town of Germantown and part of the Northern Liberties
of Philadelphia for the site on the Susquehanna and naming
New York City as the temporary location. In addition to
striking from the house bill the Susquehanna site, the senate
rejected an amendment naming a location on the northern
1It is apparent that proximity to the borders of Pennsylvania was
contemplated rather than locating any part of the new district within
the state lines, as the furthest northern limit of the region of choice
was some nineteen miles south of the Pennsylvania state line.
VOL. I—D
34 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
bank of the Potomac. The vote in the senate on German-
town was a tie, the vice-president, John Adams, by his vote,
determining the question in the affirmative.
The bill thus radically changed was returned to the house
less than three days before the date fixed upon for the adjourn-
ment of the session. It was found another change of im-
portance had been made in the house bill by the provision
that the state of Pennsylvania should furnish $100,000 to be
used in the erection of the public buildings. It is asserted
by William Maclay, that this provision was based upon such a
proposition made in the senate by his colleague, Robert Morris,
on his own responsibility, without having first secured the sanc-
tion of the state. Mr. Morris was then considered the wealth-
iest man in the country, and his personal guarantee that the
money would be provided was no doubt looked upon as ample
security.!
The state of Pennsylvania had formerly offered to the new
congress for use as a residence site any district in the state,
and similar offers had been made by Delaware, Virginia and
later on by Maryland. In the course of the debate in the
house on the bill, as it came back from the senate, it was pointed
out that the senate had proceeded on an entirely different
principle as to the location, ignoring both the Potomac and
the Susquehanna sites, yet satisfaction was expressed over
the proposed financial arrangement as being better suited to
the state of the treasury.
However, a stronger feeling would no doubt have been dis-
played had it not been that it was realized that legislation
was practically impossible owing to the brief time remaining
of the session. It was Madison, the constant and able ad-
vocate of the Potomac site, who proposed an amendment pro-
viding for the continuance of the laws of Pennsylvania over
the district until congress should otherwise direct, an im-
provement in the measure to which there could be no objec-
tion, except that making any change in the bill involved its
1Sketches of Debates in the First Senate of the United States.
William Maclay, Harrisburg, 1880.
-
ORIGIN OF THE RESIDENCE MOVEMENT 30
return to the senate, which at that stage in the session would
be fatal to its enactment into law. However, the amendment
was adopted by the house, the bill was sent to the senate, where
it was taken up in the hurry of the closing hours only to be
postponed until the next meeting of congress.
CHAPTER II
RESIDENCE BILL BECOMES A LAW
NEARLY six months of the second session of the first con-
gress, which convened in January, 1790, passed before the
residence subject was again taken up. Then it was proposed
in the house to divide the question and only decide at that
time upon the temporary location. So, on the last day of May,
a resolution was adopted by the house to hold the next session
in Philadelphia, but a week later the senate by a majority of
two votes refused to concur. At once the senate began the
consideration of a report from a committee which favored
the Potomac as the site of the permanent residence, but after
striking out the site named, further consideration was not re-
sumed until another resolve of the house, dated June 11, was
received, which provided for holding the next session in Balti-
more.
At the time the house took this course one of the delegates
from Maryland stated that the inhabitants of Baltimore had
raised a subscription of between twenty and thirty thousand
pounds, Maryland currency (equal to $53,000 or $69,000), for
the purpose of providing for the accommodation for congress,
in the event that place was selected. The facilities of Balti-
more as a meeting-place had been tested somewhat in the winter
of 1776, when on account of the occupation of Philadelphia
by the British, the continental congress adjourned to Balti-
more, where a session lasting two months was held. At the
next meeting congress was back again in Philadelphia.
During the thirteen years that had elapsed since the chief
town of Maryland had been the temporary capital, great
changes had taken place. The population had nearly doubled,
so that in 1790 the census returns showed a total of thirteen
36
-
RESIDENCE BILL BECOMES A LAW 37
thousand souls. Since the close of the war, its trade had greatly
increased, especially from the western country, to the loss of the
Potomac towns and it had become one of the shipping ports of
the country. The wealth and enterprise of its citizens is repre-
sented somewhat in the liberality of the offer made to congress.1
The senate, however, laid aside the house amendment
naming Baltimore, and proceeded to consider a bill naming a
Potomac site between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and
Conococheague, as reported favorably by a committee. This
bill, with its provisions practically unchanged, was adopted,
July 1, 1790, the vote being twelve to fourteen. The only
change in the bill was the omission of a clause authorizing
the president of the United States to borrow a sum not ex-
ceeding $100,000 to be repaid from the duties on imports and
tonnage, thus leaving as the only suggestion of means of financ-
ing the undertaking and of exercising the authority conferred
on the commissioners “to purchase or accept” land in such
quantities as the president may deem necessary, and in order
that suitable buildings might be provided, the president was
authorized “to accept grants of money.”
Such grants of money were practically assured before the bill
was finally completed by the senate. For, on the 10th of
December, 1789, some seven months previous to this date,
Virginia had made a grant of $120,000, or, as it was phrased
in the act, “an advance,” conditional upon the selection by con-
gress of a Potomac site. The codperation of Maryland was
asked, and also “an advance” by that state of a sum equal
to at least two thirds of the amount named by Virginia. It
was not until the session of the Maryland legislature in Novem-
1 At the time action was postponed by the senate on the house re-
solve to adjourn to Baltimore, in order to take up the residence bill as
reported from its committee, memorials both from citizens of Balti-
more and from Robert Peter in behalf of himself and other inhabitants
of Georgetown were read, inviting congress to locate in their towns.
The date was June 28, 1790. At the first session a petition was pre-
sented from the inhabitants of Georgetown, ‘‘ offering to put themselves
and their fortunes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in case
that town should be selected as the permanent seat of government.”
The petition was presented in the house, September 8, 1789.
38 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ber, 1790, the concurrence of the state was given, and the sum
of $72,000 was authorized to be “advanced towards the expense
of erecting the public buildings.” The next month the Vir-
ginia legislature appropriated $120,000 for the same purpose.’
The bill as adopted by the senate reached the house early
in July, was discussed for three days and on the 9th of July was
passed by a vote of twenty-two to twenty-nine. In both houses
numerous amendments were offered, and in both were found
those who preferred Baltimore or Wilmington, Del., and in the
house, Philadelphia, while an effort was made to continue
congress temporarily at New York. In the senate a proposition
was made to fix the residence “within thirty miles of Hancock
Town,” which was not agreed to.?
According to the provisions of the residence bill which became
a law, July 16, 1790, the next session, to begin the following
December, was tobe held in Philadelphia, where it was stipulated
“prior to the first Monday in December next all offices at-
1 Some sixty years ago an effort was made, and renewed at various
times down to a quite recent period, to have the United States repay
to Virginia and Maryland these sums of money on the ground that, as
the laws of both states show, they were described as ‘‘advances.”’ But
these applications have been without avail. It is quite evident that
the act of July 16, 1790, gave no authority for the acceptance of loans
of money but only ‘‘to accept grants of money.’’ House Report,
No. 512, 50th Cong., 1st. Sess.
2 This was one of several amendments which were disposed of with-
out debate, but the location proposed gives a significance and impor-
tance it would not otherwise possess, as it undoubtedly furnishes an-
other indication of the tendency away from a southern location, as
well as a purpose to gratify the three states of Pennsylvania, Virginia
and Maryland. It is also interesting as being the most advanced
western point that was voted upon during the entire discussion. For
Hancock Town or Hancock of to-day lies in the narrow strip of Mary-
land between the Pennsylvania and the Virginia state lines. It is
about thirty-five miles to the west and north of the extreme northern
limit of the region of choice named in the residence bill, and forty miles
east of Cumberland, the latter being 'a hundred and forty-six miles
from the city of Washington. ‘‘Within thirty miles of Hancock,”
the new federal district could have been wholly located within the
state lines of Pennsylvania at about the same latitude as that of
Chambersburg and Bedford. Or, it could have been placed within the
territory of the three states or in either Maryland or Virginia.
-
RESIDENCE BILL BECOMES A LAW 39
tached to the seat of government shall be removed to and until
the said first Monday in December in the year 1800 shall remain
at the city of Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania, at
which place the sessions of Congress next ensuing the present
shall be held. . . . That on the said first Monday in December,
1800, the seat of government of the United States shall, by
virtue of this act, be transferred to the district and place afore-
said.”
A district not exceeding ten miles square was to be located
on the river Potomac “at some place between the mouths
of the Eastern Branch and the Connogocheague . . . and
the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of the
government of the United States.” The president was author-
ized to appoint three commissioners “who shall under the
direction of the President survey and define said district”
and have power “to purchase or accept such quantity of land
on the eastern side of the said river [Maryland] as the President
shall deem proper.” In this district prior to the first Monday
in December, 1800, the commissioners were “to provide suitable
buildings for the accommodation of Congress and of the Presi-
dent and for the public offices of the United States.”
“For defraying the expense of such purchases and buildings,”
the law provided “the President of the United States be author-
ized to accept grants of money.”
The necessity of providing some government for the district
pending action by congress was met by directing that “the
operation of the laws of the state within such district shall not
be affected by this acceptance until the time fixed for the
removal of the government thereto and until Congress shall
otherwise by law provide.” ‘This provision was also in ac-
cordance with the Virginia cession law of December 3, 1789,
and of the Maryland law of December 19, 1791, ratifying the
cession.
The bill contained the first reference made in the consider-
ation of the residence question to “That Indian place,” as the
stream named as the northern limit of the region of choice was
sarcastically termed in the course of the debate. It was also
40 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the occasion of the sneer about “‘ building a palace in the woods.”
In point of fact, the Conococheague is a tributary of the
Potomac, entering that river near the town of Wilhamsport,
Md., some twenty miles south of the Pennsylvania state line,
and some seventy-eight miles north of Washington, and nearly
the same distance east of Cumberland. But the sarcasm lost
much of its force with men of that day who witnessed the
progress made in subduing the wilderness and foresaw the
wonderful possibilities in the way of growth of population and
the development of the material resources of the country."
It can readily be understood, however, that such an expansion
of the region of selection to the north of Georgetown was de-
signed to meet the criticism based upon the southern latitude
of the place. As Richard Bland Lee of Virginia stated to the
house in the final discussion, “We are not confined to a par-
ticular spot on the Potomac, we may fix on a place as far
north as the gentleman from Connecticut wishes.”
Lee also asserted that the states of Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia which, he said, contributed more
than one half to the public revenue, and which have the only
rival claim to the seat of government are satisfied with the bill.
With this exception, and of course the final determination
of the temporary and permanent sites, the residence bill as it
was placed on the statute book contained no features that had
not been a part of various propositions made since the subject
was first considered. The omission of any direct appropriation
was unusual, but then it will be recalled that the Virginia
legislature had voted a grant of money, in the event a Potomac
site was chosen, to defray the expense of the public buildings —
a larger amount than had been hitherto mentioned, while it
was doubtless understood that Maryland would provide, as it
did, a sum equal to about two thirds of the $120,000 offered
by Virginia, as stipulated in the Virginia act.
1 Thirty years before, the locality of Hagerstown formed the then
western frontier. To the west were the almost unbroken forests with
searcely a settlement to Fort Cumberland, which stood on what be-
came the site of the town of Cumberland. The latter was the outlying
outpost to ward off from the settlers the Indian forays.
-
RESIDENCE BILL BECOMES A LAW 41
It is significant that the measure became a law in the precise
form it was reported from the committee of the senate to that
body. The debates in the house, which are the only ones
that were reported, show that prior to the final enactment
there was considerable discussion, which however covered
practically the same ground as that of the first session. It is
also worthy to be noted that the power of exclusive legislation
in the district conferred by the constitution on congress
did not enter at all in the discussion, nor was any attempt made
to take away or to modify, as was done with other clauses of
that instrument by constitutional amendment the authority
thus conveyed.
It is quite clear from the accounts of contemporaries, as well
as by at least one reference in the final debate in the house, and
the same conclusion might be drawn from the legislative history
of the bill, more especially in the second session of the first
congress, that the residence bill was the result of what was then
described as “a bargain,’ but which as a familiar feature of
legislative procedure, is more commonly spoken of as a com-
promise.
The southern states from the outset had stood unitedly for a
southern location. The Pennsylvanians had a similar ambi-
tion for their own state, which was in population and in wealth
a leader in the new republic. The large delegation from New
York state desired the nation’s capital to remain in the chief
city of their state as long as possible; as they were well aware
it was hopeless to expect to have it permanently that far north
of the centre of population of the thirteen states. In fact, at
no time was serious consideration given to the selection of a
location for the permanent seat farther north than Philadelphia.
The eastern members naturally were disposed to keep the
residence site as far north as possible. But the burning ques-
tion at that time was the funding of the public debt and the
assumption of the state debts. Alexander Hamilton, as the
secretary of the treasury, at the first session of the new congress
made a report recommending the funding of both forms of in-
debtedness in obligations of the United States. On this there
42 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
was a division of opinion and the general line of cleavage was to
be found in the latitude which separated Maryland from Penn-
sylvania and what was then looked upon as the boundary be-
tween the northern and the southern states. It was recog-
nized that the creditor class was largely to be found in the
north where trade was a leading occupation, and not agricul-
ture, as in the south.
The debate on the funding bill had continued through the
second session of congress, and the anti-assumptionists were re-
joicing in their triumph in the house where the measure had
been defeated. This was the situation when, about the middle
of June, 1790, Alexander Hamilton devised a plan for securing
legislation on both the funding and the residence bills. In a
word, he proposed in consideration of locating the capital on
the Potomac to get enough votes to assure the enactment of
the funding measure.
Maclay records in his journal, June 14, 1790, that Morris told
him of meeting Hamilton by appointment early one morning in
the Battery ; and walking about in that rural retreat, Hamilton
said that one vote was wanted in the senate and five in the
house to carry the funding bill. Hamilton then proposed, as
Maclay asserts, an agreement about the residence bill.
Jefferson in his “Anas” also tells of an interview at this time
with Hamilton. The scene was the sidewalk in front of the
president’s residence, and as a result a dinner was given by
Jefferson, on which occasion an agreement was reached to give
votes for the funding bill, in consideration of the residence
being placed at Philadelphia for ten years, and then permanently
on the Potomac.
Fisher Ames, a member of the house from Massachusetts,
also records in his letters the political situation of the two
measures. At the first session of congress, he states, the New
England men with New York had defeated what he calls an
intrigue of the Pennsylvania men with the south for Philadelphia
as the temporary seat and the Potomac as the permanent seat,
by voting for New York as the temporary location and the
Susquehanna as the permanent place. The Pennsylvanians,
-
RESIDENCE BILL BECOMES A LAW 43
he said, abandoned their southern allies and joined with the
adherents of the Susquehanna location, and hence the change of
front in the first session, on the part of the southerners, and
their pleas for delay on a measure that before they had been
urgent for immediate action.
On June 11, 1790, Ames writes, “we are sold by the Pennsyl-
vanians and the assumption bill with it,” and on July 1, he
adds, “Last week the removal bill passed in favor of Philadel-
phia and the Potomac. That embarrassment out of the way, it
is not to be doubted we can carry out the long-contested point —
the assumption.”
Three days after the residence bill became a law, the house
agreed to the funding bill, and on the 9th of August, 1790, that
measure was placed on the statute books. Jefferson records
that as the result of the argument reached at his dinner two of
the Virginia members, Alexander White and Richard Bland Lee,
changed their votes in favor of the funding bill, “but White
with a revulsion of stomach almost convulsive.”
Fisher Ames in disgust writes “this despicable grog-shop
contest, whether the taverns of New York or Philadelphia
should get the custom of congress,’ and the same thought as
to the weight of what he termed business consideration was
expressed in the assertion made during the final debate, that
congress would never leave Philadelphia, as the influences to
keep it there would be too potent to be overcome.
It may be added in passing that such a view was entertained
largely by the Philadelphians, and during the years of preparing
the new residence place the city of Brotherly Love was looked
upon as the active centre of opposition to the execution of a
portion at least of the residence bill. As will be shown, Washing-
ton realized the attitude of Philadelphia. It was also asserted
that it was unjust, nay even dishonest, to remove from New
York before that city had an opportunity to secure reimburse-
ment for the expenses it had incurred in preparing suitable
accommodations for congress. Reference of course was here in
part to the fine new building in Wall Street which the city
had built in the fall of 1789 for the use of the new congress.
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION
Tue section of country named in the act of 1790 where the
federal capital was to be located derived its chief importance
from the Potomac River. Along its banks and those of its tribu-
taries were found only a few small centres of population, the
product of the economic influences of large individual holdings
and of a purely agricultural community. Conditions were
shaped by the needs of plantation life in a region where the chief
staple, tobacco, could be brought to navigable waters and
shipped to the markets that were mainly in Europe. While
the first permanent settlement of Virginia at Jamestown on the
James River was made in 1607, and that in Maryland at St.
Mary’s on the Chesapeake Bay in 1637, yet it was not until
near the close of the century and through the opening years of
the eighteenth, that the growth of the population led to the
settlement of lands not merely along the upper portions of such
a river as the Potomac, but throughout what might be termed
the back country.
With the Potomac on one side and the broad Chesapeake Bay
separating Maryland into two parts, and both having numerous
tributaries, and Virginia sharing with Maryland in the use of the
Potomac, and with the Rappahannock, the York and James
rivers penetrating long distances into the interior and giving
access in the readiest manner known to that time with the
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, it is not surprising that the
tide-water country held for such a length of time the supremacy
in point of population and settlement, as compared with the
interior.
The process as well as the progress of occupation may be
traced roughly in the course of the creation of the counties on
44
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 45
both sides of the river. Up to the year 1742 Prince William
County, Va., comprised all the country along the Potomac
from its southern boundary down by Dumfries on Quantico
Creek to the north, which ended only at the indefinite region
where the frontier line of the Ohio Valley began. In the year
1742 the northern portion was set off as Fairfax County, with
Alexandria as the county seat, and thirteen years later Loudoun
County was detached.
On the Maryland side of the river Charles County, which
was created in 1658, included the entire stretch of country
bordering on the Potomac from the Wicomico, near Blackistone
Island, to the Blue Ridge and to the “terra incognita” of the
frontier. Thirty-seven years later the upper limit of Charles
County was fixed at Mattawaman Creek, near Glymont, and
the balance of the upper territory constituted Prince George
County. Not until 1748 was it found necessary to reduce in
size this great territory comprising the whole of western
Maryland.
Frederick County was founded, the line separating it from
Prince George County being drawn from the mouth of Rock
Creek northeast to the Patuxent River near the present
town of Laurel, Maryland. But the closeness of the locality
that became sixteen years later the District of Columbia to the
existing western frontier is shown by the circumstance that in
what was known as Lord Dunmore’s war in 1774, the inhab-
itants of Alexandria were so much alarmed by rumors of the
approach of their savage foes that they had their property
carted away to what was regarded as a more secure place.!
The process of settlement was not merely from the tide-water
region to the north and west, but there was also a movement of
the population to the southward from Pennsylvania.
Along this route came German and Quaker settlers who were
the pioneers in the upper portions of Frederick County and also
Montgomery County, and a portion of this stream flowed into
Loudoun County, Va. They were a sturdy folk, industrious
and careful, and were good farmers, and unlike the tide-water
1 Maryland Archives, Journal Council of Safety. Jan. 30, 1776.
46 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
settlers did not devote their entire energies to raising tobacco.
They formed the advance guard of the general tide of settlers
that made the Shenandoah Valley a place of abundant crops
and of the movement which carried the settlements still farther
south ready for the advance across the Alleghanies, and where
just prior to the revolutionary war those hardy pioneers were
mustered who headed the first parties that began the settlement
of the fertile lands of Kentucky and Tennessee.
As the seventeenth century closed, and during the early years
of the eighteenth century much of the emigration from England,
Scotland and Ireland passed up the Chesapeake Bay and along
the Potomac, establishing in the case of the Scotch such a
settlement as Dumfries, and leaving a trace of their influence
in the name New Scotland Hundred, one of the political divisions
of Charles County created in 1696 and including within its
limits the present territory of the District of Columbia.
The religious and political disturbances in Great Britain
served to send forth to the new country representatives of the
best families and men of standing and ability in their home
communities. In addition to these causes, the growing trade
with the colonies of Maryland and Virginia led to the opening
of trading centres in charge of representatives of great English
commercial houses, and thus helped along the growth of such
towns as Bladensburg, Alexandria and Georgetown.!
By this time, too, the settlers were free from the dangers
which were inevitable while the Indians continued to occupy
the same region with the whites. For, as Thomas Jefferson
records in his notes on the state of Virginia, written in the years
1JIn addition, the tide of settlement towards the great western
country, which became one of the most potent influences in shaping
the destiny of the United States, used the thoroughfare across the
Alleghany range where subsequently the first and only federal turn-
pike was built, the old National Pike extending west from Cumber-
land to Wheeling, one hundred and twenty-six miles, and in the vicinity
of which, later on, the rails of that early railroad, the Baltimore and
Ohio, were laid. North of Cumberland some thirty miles, and in
Pennsylvania, was the other great highway across the mountains form-
ing an early connection between Philadelphia and the settlements
about Fort Pitt, or Pittsburg, as it came to be called.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 47
1781 and 1782, in a period of sixty-two years after the James-
town settlement, two thirds of the Indians constituting the forty
tribes that then occupied the country between the sea and the
falls of the Potomac had disappeared. This great decrease
he attributed to the use of spirituous liquors, to smallpox and
to the abridgment of their territory.
The Powhatans, as Captain John Smith records, formed the
most powerful tribe, and allied with them were several smaller
bands. This indefatigable traveller explored the Potomac River,
but according to the best judgment based on his rather vague
accounts, it is concluded that he did not get farther up the river
than Indian Head, which is some ten miles distant from the
city of Washington. In 1631, however, Henry Fleete, an
Englishman who had some years previously been held as a
captive by the Anacostan Indians living in and around the
vicinity of the District, returned to this country on a trading
expedition organized in the interests of some English merchants.
His account of the ascent of the Potomac, and his description
of the vicinity of the Indian village, or town, as he calls it,
of Tohogae, leaves no question in the minds of modern
scholars that this place occupied the site where George-
town was built. Fleete is therefore accorded the honor of
being the first European to visit the locality of the District.
There is a question whether Smith has a right to the dis-
tinction generally accorded him of being the first European to
visit the lower Potomac.”
The Indian occupation of the District and its vicinity is
commemorated in the name Anacostia, which the tributary of
the Potomac also known as the Eastern Branch, bears, and
1 Old Georgetown. By Hugh T. Taggart. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. XI.
2The author of the History of the Catholic Church in the United
States, John G. Shea, states the Spanish archives contain the record
of a visit of a Spanish vessel to the Potomac about the middle of the
sixteenth century, half a century before the coming to these shores of
Smith. He also states that about the year 1570 a mission station was
established by the Jesuits on the Occoquan, but in neither case was a
permanent settlement made. A settlement was attempted by the
Spanish in 1526 on the site where Jamestown was subsequently
located, which was soon abandoned.
48 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
which was originally directed to be the southern boundary of
the city. This name was also given to an island lying near the
Virginia shore and opposite to Georgetown. In the land
records of Virginia this island is referred to under the name of
My Lord’s Island, and later in the Maryland land records of
1682 as Barbadoes, and also by the name of Analostian Island,
and also Anacostian Island. When it came into the posses-
sion of George Mason in 1777, it began to be known as Mason’s
Island.
There are other traces of the Indian inhabitants in the sites
of their villages marked by stone implements and fragments of
pottery. According to the careful and scientific survey made
of this region for Indian remains, a line of Indian village sites
has been traced along the southern bank of the Eastern Branch
from the Potomac as far east as Bladensburg. One such site
is indicated in what became the large reservation south of the
capitol at the intersection of New Jersey and Virginia avenues,
while there are others along the gorge of Piney Branch west
of 14th Street, a tributary of Rock Creek, and quite a number on
the southern shore of the Potomac, and also in the vicinity of
the Little Falls.
Another name besides those derived from the aboriginal in-
habitants is found in the map of Augustine Herrman, published
in 1673, where the title Turkey Buzzard is applied to the point
near the mouth of the Eastern Branch, just east of what was
later known as Greenleaf and Arsenal Point. The “ Anacostian
Islands” also appear on this map, one of which is identified as
the one known in modern times as Analostan Island, and the
other as the one formerly near the Virginia end of the old Long
Bridge, and known as Holmes Island, and also as Alexander’s
Island.”
From all accounts that have come down in regard to this
locality, and some of the circumstances are borne out by later
1 A collection of stone implements from the District of Columbia by
S. V. Proudfit. Map of Indian Village Sites, Proceedings U. S. Nat.
Museum, Vol. 13, p. 187.
2 Old Georgetown. Taggart, p. 130.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 49
testimony, the region was specially favored, owing to the abun-
dance of game of all kinds, especially the fish with which the
waters teemed, and the birds which fed along the banks of the
streams. The soil was rich and fertile, in striking contrast to
its condition after a few years of the wasteful, one-crop system
of the early settlers to which they adhered with a persistence
which at the outset at least was due to ignorance rather than
obstinacy.
The astonishing fertility of this virgin soil, which continued
to yield its yearly crops for a long period without receiving from
the tiller anything in return, does not alone account for the con-
tinuance of such a method of cultivation. The vast area of the
land made it possible for the planter after exhausting one field
to abandon it and clear another for the tobacco crop, and hence
the abundance of so-called “old fields.” The extent of the
individual holdings was large.
As the tide of settlement pushed its way up along the tribu-
taries of the river and the land along the Patuxent was taken,
then the settlers advancing still farther to the north found their
way along the upper Potomac and Rock Creek. The movement
along Rock Creek began, it is estimated, in 1688, and the
general tendency in this locality is indicated broadly by the
dates of the patents granted by the lord proprietor.!
For example, a tract called Blue Plains on the south side of
the Eastern Branch and within the District was conveyed
to George Thompson by Lord Baltimere in 1662; also the
adjoining tracts of St. Elizabeth and Giesborough in 1663, while
on the north side of the Eastern Branch and comprising a
broad belt of land extending from that stream northward
including the present site of the capitol building and the land
for some distance to the north was Duddington’s pasture, a
tract of some fourteen hundred acres. In 1663 this tract was
also conveyed by Lord Baltimore to George Thompson.
1 A copy of the original patent for Duddington pasture and a record
of subsequent deeds of some of the land within the site of the city
are to be found in United States vs. M. F. Morris, et al., Potomac Flats
Case. Record, Vol. 6, p. 367.
VOL. I—B
50 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The next year John Langworthacquired a tract of six hundred
acres known as the Widow’s Mite, and occupying that portion
of the site of Washington which lies to the northward from
the Naval Medical School Hospital at 24th and E streets, N. W.
A part of this tract, together with a portion of the Vineyard
patented to William Hutchinson in 1696, with portions of other
tracts, was merged in a tract called Mexico, owned by Robert
Peter, a leading merchant of Georgetown, whose holdings ex-
tended along Rock Creek and the Potomac.
Beall’s Levels, containing two hundred and twenty-five acres,
was patented in 1703 to Ninian Beall, a Scotchman who lived at
Upper Marlboro, and who also acquired the tract, Rock of Dum-
barton, upon a portion of which Georgetown was located.
The lord proprietor to whom the entire territory of Maryland
had been given did not depend upon the sale of the lands for
the profits of his government, as he had from the colony other
sources of income. This is shown in the consideration named
in the patent of Duddington pasture which for the fourteen
hundred acres is stated to be one pound, sixteen shillings sterling
“or in commodities.” George Thompson held the land for
seven years, and when he deeded it to Thomas Notley the latter
paid him forty thousand pounds of tobacco.
An incident in the history of one of the tracts referred to as
lying to the south of the Eastern Branch is related by Edward
D. Neill in his account of Maryland in the book entitled “‘ Terra
Marie.” He states that shortly after the middle of the seven-
teenth century, James Pancoast, a watchmaker apprenticed in
London, was kidnapped and sold to a man in Maryland. By
his industry he obtained a tract of land that came to be known
as Giesborough. Having been drowned, and as he was never
married, his estate was unclaimed for a long time and reverted
to the proprietary. In the year 1770 two brothers of the
deceased, early settlers in Burlington County, New Jersey,
brought suit to recover the property.
There is also a record of a tract of land called Scotland Yard,
belonging to Captain Robert Troope, and lying to the north of
where the capitol building now stands. Duddington Manor, or
‘ALIG S.ALIQ dO SUANMQ JO SANIT ALUTAIOUT
tL sat
POLS pores
penne
went
Livid M4 ZIHBVI NAD
ry ued ony Mu pod)
UNNGN] 200% SQUNS OH OF MEET
an
‘OMIAING NT NOLONTHSVM
UOLANS
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 51
pasture, with itsfourteen hundred acres, as determined by a more
exact survey in 1721, was left by the will of Thomas Notley dated
1679 to his godson Notley Rozier. The latter married Jane
Diggs, and their only child, Eleanor Rozier, married Daniel
Carroll. The title to the property then vested in the only son
of the latter, Charles Carroll, Jr. The eldest son of the latter,
Daniel Carroll of Duddington, was the owner of the main por-
tion of this tract when the city was laid out. For in the year
1758 a section of Duddington Manor was conveyed by Charles
Carroll, Jr., of Prince George County, to his stepmother Ann
Young, the second wife of the first Daniel Carroll. This holding
comprised four hundred acres, which extended along the river
from its junction with the Eastern Branch north to a point
above the railroad bridge at the south end of Maryland
Avenue.
Ann Young’s first husband, Benjamin Young, the father of
Notley Young, died in 1754. He came from England and served
for a number of years as land commissioner under Lord Balti-
more. A tract of land belonging to him and lying near the
northern original limits of the city was inherited by his son,
Notley Young, and became a part of the Youngsboro tract
previously owned by Notley Young. The latter married Mary
Diggs, and by deed dated March 21, 1762, his mother, Ann
Young, conveyed to him the tract of land in the southern sec-
tion of the city then known as Duddington pasture land, where
according to the deed in 1758 from Charles Carroll, Jr., to Ann
Young, “the dwelling house of the said Ann Young stands.”
It is supposed this was the house which subsequently became
the home of Notley Young, where he was living when the city
was laid out. It was built of brick, two stories and an attic, fifty
by forty feet, and stood in what became G Street between 9th
and 10th streets,S. W.!. The first Daniel Carroll of Duddington
was the great-uncle of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the signer
of the Declaration of Independence. His son, Charles Carroll,
Jr., of Duddington or Carrollsburg, the latter being the name
of the town site which he laid off on a portion of his property
1Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 16, p. 3.
52 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
to the east of Greenleaf’s Point, was born Sept. 12, 1729. He
came from Ireland, as did his brother Daniel Carroll, the latter
settling at Upper Marlboro on a branch of the Patuxent about
fourteen miles southeast of Washington, where he engaged in
business as a merchant. He married Eleanor Darnall, the
daughter of Henry Darnall, who owned an estate called Wood-
yard a few miles southwest of Upper Marlboro."
In the year 1668 Henry Darnall received a patent for a tract
of land containing some six thousand acres, which lay on both
sides of Rock Creek, and extended from within the bounds of
the District northward, including a portion of what is now
Rock Creek Park, Takoma, Forest Glen and Silver Spring.
Nine miles north of the centre of the city of Washington and
near what is now known as Forest Glen, the Carrolls, probably
some years prior to the revolution, made their home. Here the
son was living, who was known as Daniel Carroll of Upper Marl-
boro and also of Rock Creek, when he was appointed one of the
commissioners of the city of Washington. At that time his
nephew, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, was living in his farm-
house near Greenleaf’s Point, but when the first work of the
survey of the site of the city was begun in the spring of 1791,
he started the erection of a large brick house on Square 736,
between Ist, 2d, E and F streets, S. E.?
A portion of the tract called Beall’s Levels surveyed for
Ninian Beall in 1703 was resurveyed for James Burnes, a
Scotchman, in 1769.*
He died before he had obtained a patent, but had occupied
the land for a number of years. His eldest son, David Burnes,
secured a patent for the land in 1774. This tract, irregular in
shape, lay east of 19th Street, and just south of New York Ave-
nue, and extended eastward quite to Ist Street, W., and with the
southern boundary at the Mall, thus including the whole of
‘ Biographical Sketch of the Most Rev. John Carroll. John
Carroll Brent, Baltimore, 1843.
2 Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Kate
M. Rowland, N.Y., 1898.
3 Old Georgetown. Taggart, p. 139; also list of early patents of
land within the bounds of the city.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 53
what became the central portion of the city lying on each side of
Pennsylvania Avenue.
An unusual combination of names in a certificate of survey
recorded in the land records of Maryland, has perhaps made
it the best known of all the ancient records of this locality.
On June 5, 1663, a tract of four hundred acres of land called
Rome was surveyed for Thomas Pope, and subsequently owned
by Francis Pope. It is described in part as “lying on the east
side of the Annacostone river,” and one line of which extended
to “a bounded oak standing at the north of a bay or indent
called Tiber.” 4
While it is impossible to determine from the description of the
instrument. the exact location, yet it is held by competent
authority that it was included within the original bounds of
the city of Washington. In the year 1818, John Brewer, at
that time register of the Maryland land office, in a letter writ-
ten on this subject to Thomas Law, stated “that Mr. Callahan,
the former register with whom I wrote twenty-five years ago,
has often mentioned to me the circumstance of the city of Wash-
ington being located on the same land.” ?
A tract of land best known as Widow’s Mite and lying just
beyond the original boundary of the city north of Florida Ave-
nue, and extending from about 17th Street, W., extended to
Rock Creek, came at an early period into the possession of
Anthony Holmead, an Englishman. As he died childless, his
property passed to his nephew, also named Anthony Holmead.
The tract of land included a portion that fell within the bounds
of the city, and Anthony Holmead’s name appears in the
agreement made in 1791 between the commissioners of the city
1 Liber 6, folio 318, Land Records of Maryland.
2 National Intelligencer, May 29, 1818. Among the Bozeman
family papers in the manuscript division of the library of congress,
is an opinion dated 1763 of C. N. Goldsborough, a Maryland lawyer,
construing the will of one John Pope. In the course of this opinion,
it is stated that John Pope made his will in the year 1702. A refer-
ence is made to his property, a tract called Rome. Also to his brother
Robert Pope, of Bristol, England, all of which, though indefinite, serves
to give some form to the shadowy Francis Pope as he appears in the
early history of the federal city.
54 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
and the original proprietors. In the year 1795 he sold a portion
of his property where his house was located to Gustavus Scott,
one of the commissioners of the city, and this subsequently
passed into the possession of Joel Barlow, who gave it the name
of Kalorama. On the brow of the hill adjoining his old home-
stead on the east, Anthony Holmead, the same year he sold to
Scott, built a two-story brick house, which now fronts on the
north side of S Street, between 22d and 23d streets. It re-
mained in possession of the family for one hundred and seven
years, and is still well preserved.
Benjamin Stoddert and James M. Lingan, merchants of
Georgetown, acquired a portion of the Widow’s Mite as early
as the year 1784,' and the names of both appear in the list of
original proprietors. Lingan’s holding comprised land in the
vicinity of Dupont Circle.
In a receipt given for the sale of certain lots in Hamburg in
the year 1768 by Jacob Funk, more than a century after the
survey certificate of Thomas Pope, the property is described as
lying “between Rock Grick and Goos Grick,” showing that the
latter name was also an early designation of that stream. The
name Tiber appears in the first map of the city, which was made
by L’Enfant in the year 1791, and it was applied to this stream,
which had its origin in two branches that flowed from the
heights encircling the north of the original city and uniting
at a point at M Street just east of North Capitol Street, passed
along Second Street, N. W., at the base of the elevation where
the capitol building is located, and thence to the westward,
where it emptied into the Potomac. At that time it also bore
the name of Goose Creek.’
The rather lofty name of Tiber in contrast with the humbler
appellation gave point to one of the stanzas in the satirical
verses on the city written by Tom Moore, the Irish poet who
visited Washington in 1804.
1Cranch Circuit Court Reports, Vol. 1, p. 69.
2 “Where the road crosses Goose Creek in going from Georgetown
to the Eastern Branch.” Washington to Deakins and Stoddert,
Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1791. Washington’s Letter Book, 1790-1793,
Vol. XI.
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 55
Two brothers, William and Abraham Young, and their sister,
Ann Young, who married Aquilla Wheeler, owned tracts of
farm lands bordering the extreme eastern edge of the city.
It was from the lands of Aquilla Wheeler at the foot of 14th
Street E., at its juncture with Virginia Avenue and a short
distance south of the present Pennsylvania Avenue bridge, the
ferry started, operated by Wheeler, which later became known
as the Upper Ferry. The date of the establishment of this
ferry is unknown, but as three roads led to it through the site
of the city, it was much in use as a means of communication
between southern Maryland and not only Georgetown but the
country to the north and the highways to Bladensburg and
Frederick.
It may be concluded that the prospects of the site of the federal
city, as also its vicinity, presented attractions over other locali-
ties in the domain of Lord Baltimore, for there several of the
men who held office under the lord proprietor acquired large
tracts of land, and in some cases established homes. One of
these was Benjamin Young, the father of Notley Young, and a
land commissioner under Lord Baltimore.
Then there was Thomas Notley, an early owner of Dudding-
ton Manor, who was prominent officially in colonial Maryland.
His godson, Notley Rozier, to whom the property was left by
will, intermarried in the Carroll family, which was strongly
represented in the locality.
Another colonial official was Thomas Darnall, the father-in-
law of Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek.
The rise of towns both in Maryland and Virginia was slow in
spite of the encouragement given by the state authorities,
especially of Maryland, to promote such centres.?
1 After the city was laid out, Abraham Young built a residence of
brick just beyond the limits on 15th Street, opposite D Street, which
was torn down in 1912, and where he made his home. This house,
and the one erected about the same time by Anthony Holmead, are the
only homes of original proprietors that survived to so late a period the
changes of the years. Abraham Young Mansion, Allen C. Clark.
Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 12.
2 Maryland Local Institutions. L. W. Whelan. J. H. U. Studies,
3d Series, Vols. VI and VII.
56 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
-
It was early recognized that the material interests of the
community suffered because of the lack of convenience of trade
and access to needed supplies, which are to be found in all
communities where are collected those who are engaged in
other lines of activity than agriculture. Under the existing
system there could be but two classes, the planters and the
laborers. The intermediate class of merchants and artisans
of all the various trades were in the earlier years lacking, and
in consequence the community which produced nothing but
agricultural products and that, too, mainly the one staple of
tobacco, was expending practically its entire income away from
home. It did not have the use of the proceeds of its own
industry and was rapidly becoming a debtor class. The plan-
tation system showed this vital economic defect in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries in precisely the same manner as
in the cotton states of the south a century and more later.
Towns both in Maryland and Virginia had their beginnings
in the various shipping ports where tobacco was brought to be
loaded on vessels. Here were located the custom-houses, where
a portion of the public revenue was collected, and here were
also the warehouses or tobacco inspection houses established
by laws regulating the quality and the grade of tobacco sent
abroad. For, tobacco was not only the staple of trade but
was the principal medium of exchange, and was used to pay
state taxes and church tithes. Practically all obligations were
payable in tobacco.
The inspection houses were also called “rolling houses,”’
and the roads leading to them were termed rolling roads.
As wheeled vehicles were not of practical use, the tobacco was
placed in hogsheads weighing nine hundred and fifty to eighteen
hundred pounds, and saplings were fastened at each end of a
pole serving as an axle. Horses or men were attached to these
rude shafts and the hogshead was rolled along to the port of
shipment.1
A species of warehouse certificate was early introduced as
1 History of Western Maryland. J. Thomas Scharf, Philadelphia,
1882.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 57
a medium of facilitating dealing in tobacco. Under the Vir-
ginia law of 1730 the justices of the peace constituting the
court in each county of Virginia, each year appointed inspectors
at the tobacco warehouses, located on the Virginia bays and
rivers at a distance of about twelve or fourteen miles apart.
Such officials were appointed under the Maryland law of 1748
by the church vestries.
The duty of the inspectors was to receive the good and mer-
chantable tobacco, and not only rejecting but burning what
was pronounced to be bad and defective. “Crop notes’? were
given to the planters for such of the tobacco as passed inspec-
tion, and as they conveyed absolutely the title, they passed
freely from hand to hand. In this way it was possible for the
planter to sell his tobacco in the most convenient market.!
It was not until 1680 the site of the town of Norfolk was
surveyed. It was made an incorporated borough in 1736.
Williamsburg, Va., was built in 1705, and created a borough
or market town in 1722. Annapolis, Md., was incorporated
in 1696 and received a charter in 1708. Baltimore, Md., was
1 Description of Virginia Commerce, Muir’s Bookkeeping Modern-
ized, 3d ed., 1784. A list is given of the location of inspection houses
in that state, and of the twelve on the Potomac are mentioned Acquia,
Quantico, Occoquan, Hunting Creek and Falls.
Hunting Creek was also known as Belle Haven, and later on as
Alexandria, while Falls presumably refers to some point in the vicinity
of the Little Falls above Georgetown.
The letter bock of Robert Carter. of Nomini, Westmoreland Co.,
Va., of the probable date of 1770 or 1771, gives the names of four mer-
chants and factors residing at Colchester on the Occoquan, and of eight
at Dumfries on the Quantico River. The merchants and factors
residing at Alexandria are given as follows: Hooe and Harrison,
Stewart and Hubbard, Fitzgerald and Piers, Harper and Hartshorn
(dissolved), John Allison, Wm. Sadler, Robt. Adams & Co., Henby and
Culder, Wm. Hayburne, wheat purchasers; George Gilpin and Thomas
Kilpatrick, inspectors of flour; MceCawley and Mayer import British
goods, which they sell by wholesale ; Wm. Wilson, seller of British goods,
who buys tobacco, and also John Locke and John Muir, Brown
and Finley, they import goods for Philadelphia and purchase wheat
and tobacco, as also does Josiah Wilson; Robert Dove & Co., distil-
lers; Carlyle and Dalton sells rum and sugar. William and Mary
College Quarterly, Vol. II, p. 245.
58 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
created in 1729 by the assembly as a market and port of entry.
At Garrison’s Landing at the head of navigation of the Eastern
Branch, the town of Bladensburg, Md., was laid out in 1742.
It soon became quite a centre of trade and was the headquarters
of several of the large English concerns trading in this country.
About the time of the revolution its business began to decline.
William Wirt, who was born there, in his reminiscences of his
boyhood days mentions several of the merchants of those days,
Christopher Lowndes, Robert Dick and others.
Authority was given by the Virginia assembly to lay out a
town at Hunting Creek Warehouse in 1743, although the
name Alexandria was applied to the place by an act of the
previous year, when provision was made for holding fairs there.
The site of Georgetown was laid out in building lots by authority
of the Maryland law of 1751, and on land “adjacent to the
inspection house called George Gordon’s Rolling House.” !
The sixty acres selected for the town included land owned
by George Gordon and George Beall. The former acquired
his holding, comprising some three hundred acres, in the year
1734, when it received the name of Rock Creek Plantation,
and it is conjectured about that time the inspection house
which stood on his land and on the south side of M Street just
west of Wisconsin Avenue was erected.
Gordon was a member of the county court when Frederick
County was created, and also served as sheriff of the county.”
George Beall, the other original proprietor, inherited from
his father, Ninian Beall, a tract called the Rock of Dumbarton,
and there according to tradition preserved in the reminiscences
of his great grandson he set up his tent in the “ground occupied
by Miss English’s Seminary,” the northeast corner of 30th
and N streets.’
It is conjectured George Beall was the first settler. He was
not disposed to part with his property, and so the value of the
1 History of Western Maryland. J. Thomas Scharf, Philadelphia,
1882. 2 Old Georgetown. Taggart.
* Reminiscences of Georgetown, D.C. Rev. T. B. Balch, Washing-
ton, 1859.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 59
land was fixed by the jury, which his refusal to sell made neces-
sary to summon. Under the law he had the right of the first
choice of lots, and in reluctantly exercising that right he sturdily
or surlily gave notice that his acceptance of the course pursued,
which was due to favor, “shall not debar me from future re-
dress from the commissioners or others. I have the right of
a British subject. I ask no more, God save King George !”’ !
The jury appointed to condemn the land returned its value
at 280 pounds currency, or $744.66, or $12.44 per acre.”
The town as thus laid out was bounded on the east by 30th
Street and on the north by M Street, with the Potomac on the
two other sides. “As early as 1703,” it is stated by Hugh T.
Taggart in the paper on Old Georgetown, referred to above,
“there was a landing on the Georgetown side of Rock Creek,
where it entered the Potomac, called Saw Pit Landing; this
landing shows that the place had then some importance as a
trading post.”
Jacob Funk, a German resident, near Frederick, Md., owned
a tract of land that subsequently lay within the limits of the
city of Washington, which he divided into building lots in the
year 1768, making a town site called Hamburg, and also known
as Funkstown. This tract extended from a short distance
west of what is now 19th Street, N. W., to west of 23d Street,
and from H Street, S., to the river. The lots had a frontage
of some one hundred feet and a depth of about two hundred,
and there were two hundred and eighty-seven of them.
Two years later Charles Carroli, Jr., of Duddington, also
made a subdivision, occupying the neck of land east of James
Creek, or Greenleaf’s Point, or from Third Street, S. W.,
to Ist Street, S. E., and from N Street, S., to the Eastern
Branch. ‘The lots were similar in size to those in the Hamburg
subdivision, and were two hundred and sixty-seven in number.
In both instances the streets were narrow as compared with
1 Reminiscences of George Watterston. Daily National Intelligen-
eer, Feb. 27, 1852. It is supposed the name of the town perpetuates
that of this early but evidently independent property owner.
2 The same.
60 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
those in the plan of the city of Washington. The Carrolls-
burgh lots were disposed of through a lottery.
It is probable the proposed settlement of Hamburg was
suggested by the promise of the locality on the east side of
Rock Creek becoming a point for the river trade, as well as
Georgetown on the west side. Carrollsburgh did, in fact,
become such a centre, although not in a large way.’
Neither of the proposed settlements of Hamburg and
Carrollsburgh attracted many people, and but few houses were
located in either place.
The Maryland town, before it reached the corporate stage,
had no separate existence from the county in which it was
located. There was no local government. The commissioners
named in the act to lay out the town were a self-perpetuating
body with powers limited to the disposition of the lots and the
adjustment of disputes between lot owners. ‘Taxes were laid
by the county court, and the county justices or parish vestry
exercised their functions in the town as in the county, or
parish.®
In line with the policy of promoting trade centres was the
encouragement given to holding fairs which were familiar
events to those who had been brought up in Europe. By
the law of 1742 the Virginia assembly, and by the act author-
izing the laying out of the town of Georgetown in 1751, the
Maryland assembly gave their sanction to holding fairs semi-
annually in the spring and the fall both at Alexandria and
Georgetown. As the Maryland law expressed it, such events
“may prove an encouragement to the back inhabitants and
others to bring commodities there to sell and vend,’ while
the Virginia enactment expressed the conclusion that it would
1 Advertisement in the Georgetown Weekly Ledger, Nov. 26,
1791, to holders of certain tickets to whom conveyances of lots have
not been made.
2 “For Glasgow, the ships Thetis and Willin are now receiving their
cargoes at the port of Carrollsburg.’”’ Times and Potomac Packet,
Oct. 27, 1790.
3 The Financial History of Baltimore. J. H. Hollander, Baltimore,
1899.
>
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 61
afford an opportunity for “the sale and vending of all
manner of cattle, victuals, provisions, goods, wares, and
merchandise.”
In both instances all persons coming and going to the fair,
together with their goods, were exempt from all arrests and
attachments except for capital offences and breaches of the
peace. While the primary purpose of these gatherings was
trade and providing a market for not merely the products of
the earth, but for merchandise, they also served to satisfy
that social instinct which delights in the mere contact with
one’s fellows.
At such centres as Williamsburg and Annapolis, especially
when the state legislatures were in session, large numbers of
the planters had establishments where they lived gay and
hospitable lives. They had fine equipages and the “drawing
rooms,” as the more pretentious social occasions were termed,
were attended by a company that in dress, manners and wit
were said to rival similar functions held at the first capitals of
Europe.
The houses that remain confirm the accounts that have come
down of the elegance and the profuseness of life at such centres.
But for the most part the towns did not grow, and they re-
mained for a long period mainly distinguished by the location
there of the custom-house, and in some cases, of the court-
house. In the entire state of Maryland in 1756 the white
population numbered 107,963, while there were 46,225 blacks.
Twenty-three years after Baltimore was laid out it contained
only twenty-five houses and two hundred inhabitants."
At that time the surveyors were marking out the streets of
Georgetown. Public highways were unknown. Rolling roads
made by tobacco hogsheads and bridle paths used by pack
horses were the chief means of communication. The main
road through the District was what was known as the George-
town-Bladensburg Road, and from the earliest time until
steam came into use it was an artery of travel between the
north and the south. Two sections of this road still exist.
1 Griffith’s Annals of Baltimore.
62 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
One is Florida Avenue from the ford at the present P Street
bridge to 7th Street. From 7th Street the road trended to the
northeast and mounted the encircling rim of hills. A spur ran to
the south, the course of which is preserved in part in the lines of
the modern Bladensburg Road which comes to the original
bounds of the city at Maryland Avenue and 15th Street, N. E.
Inthe early daysit passed on to the south, paralleling the Eastern
Branch, to the ferry at the foot of 14th Street, S. E. On
the east side of the Eastern Branch was also a road from Bla-
densburg that led to a point on the Potomac nearly opposite
Alexandria, where there was a ferry at a very early day. It
crossed the Marlboro Road near the Eastern Branch ferry.’
The western section of the post road beyond Rock Creek
passed through Georgetown to near the foot of Wisconsin Av-
enue. At that time the section of Wisconsin Avenue south of M
Street was knownas WaterStreet, and led to the ferry across the
Potomac to the Virginia shore. While the post road crossed
Rock Creek by a ford, yet the rising importance of Georgetown
was indicated by the erection of a bridge — the first in the
District — over the creek about on the line of M Street
two years before the residence bill became a law.” From
this point a road passed through the city and by a ford in
the Tiber Creek just north of the present site of the capitol
to the Eastern Branch * which indicates in a general way the
course of the old thoroughfare between Georgetown and the
Eastern Branch that was wiped out by the city plan.4
It was probably a spur from this road that trended to the
north and west of the capitol site, thence to the east of Mas-
sachusetts Avenue and 4th Street, N. W., and on to the north,
1 Ferries did not fall under the regulation of the Maryland law until
quite late in the eighteenth century, and hence there is no record of
the early ones.
? Old Georgetown. Taggart. The bridge was built in 1788.
eee of the City. George{Watterston, Intelligencer, Aug. 26,
‘The only reference to this highway is found in a letter of Wash-
ington to Messrs. Deakins and Stoddert. Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1791.
Washington’s Letter Book. 1790-1793, Vol. XI.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 63
probably connecting with the Rock Creek Church Road.!_ By
means of the Rock Creek Church Road, the southern section
of which, ending at the original bounds of the city at Connecti-
cut Avenue, and Florida Avenue, is now known in part as
Columbia Road, and the portion east of New Hampshire
Avenue bears the old name; the course of travel flowed north
through Montgomery County to Rockville and still north to
the Baltimore-Frederick Road. In addition to the Bladens-
burg, Marlboro and Alexandria roads which centred in
Georgetown, there was also a thoroughfare from that place
to Frederick, the southern portion of which it is supposed
coincides with what came to be called the Rockville Road.
It is also conjectured that this section of the road, in the
early years, followed more closely the banks of the Potomac
and that which is known as Wisconsin Avenue came into use
at a later period, perhaps about the time of the war of the
revolution.2, But while the main portion of the population
clung to the waterways, roads were of minor consequence.
The prime need for the development of the Potomac as a
factor not only in promoting trade but in binding the interests
of the growing population west of the Alleghanies to those of
the eastern section was early recognized, and especially by such
a leading spirit as Washington, who, on his hunting and sur-
veying trips, and then in 1753, when he went to Fort Pitt as
the official representative of the English government, through
the governor of Virginia, to protest against the erection there
of a fort by the French, had an opportunity to become ac-
quainted with the character of the country.
He foresaw the general as well as the local advantages of
making the Potomac the centre for the trade of the western
1In an advertisement of lots for sale at Massachusetts Avenue and
4th Street, N. W., the property is described as ‘‘ bounded on the east by
the turnpike road from the capitol to Montgomery Court House.” In-
telligencer, Oct. 1, 1811.
2 The first topographic map of the District as well as the first
attempt in its cartography is the one prepared by Andrew Ellicott and
published in 1792. It has special value because it shows the roads
leading into the city, but unfortunately an outline plan of the city is
inserted, so that all these thoroughfares stop at the boundaries.
64 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
country, that was sure to grow with increasing volume. But
he perceived also the dangers in the separating tendencies in
the east and in the west, and especially in the event the com-
merce of the Ohio Valley should find an outlet down the Missis-
sippi, which was then in control of the French.
At the same time, but more especially in the later period of
the river improvement movement, and even after the Potomac
Company had been formed, opposition to the scheme came from
central Virginia, where it was desired that the James River
should be made a trade centre, while also in the later period
regard for the growing trade of Baltimore arrayed a large and
influential element in Maryland against the project of a George-
town centre of commerce.!
In the year 1748, the Ohio Company was formed to promote
the settlement of the Ohio as well as to carry on trade with the
Indians, which was another recognition of the availability of
the Potomac.? The boats of that company began in the year
1749 to ply between the Great Falls and a trading post on
the present site of the city of Cumberland, where in 1754
Fort Cumberland was built. At that time there was only an
Indian trail west of Fort Cumberland, while for eighty miles
east of that post there was scarcely a settlement.®
England’s struggle with the French for the possession of the
Mississippi Valley was closed with General Wolfe’s victory in
1759 over the French at Quebec. But five years before that
the aggressive policy of the French to keep the English out
of the country west of the Alleghanies led to numerous forays
by their Indian allies on the frontiers of Maryland and Vir-
ginia. These colonies were compelled to defensive measures,
although what was done was greatly weakened by the con-
test then going on between the colonists and the royal
1A New Chapter in the Early Life of Washington. John Pickell,
New York, 1856.
? History of Cumberland, Maryland. W. H. Lowdermilk, Wash-
ington, 1879.
3 Karly Development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Project.
George W. Ward. Johns Hopkins University Studies Series, Vol. VII,
Nos. 9, 10, 11.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 65
government of Virginia, and the proprietary government of
Maryland.
The seriousness of the situation led England in 1755 to send
General Edward Braddock to the scene of hostilities with two
regiments. In the spring of that year these forces landed at
Alexandria, Va., and there Braddock had a conference with
the governors of the colonies. As the result of the advice given
at that time Braddock decided upon his route to Fort Duquesne,
where the French had established a military post in defiance
of English protests. The Potomac route, following the course
of that river to its head waters and thence north to the head
waters of the Ohio, was decided upon, although west of Frederick
there were no roads. The desired point might have been
reached by marching north from Frederick into Pennsylvania,
where were the advantages of a settled country and roads, but
Braddock’s advisers were influenced more by economic than
by military considerations, as the people of Virginia and Mary-
land desired to have a road opened to the head of the naviga~
tion of the Potomac.!
The delays caused by the necessity of building a road as the
troops advanced gave the enemy ample time to concentrate
their forces and to learn of Braddock’s movements, and this
circumstance, together with the English general’s refusal to
change his military tactics so as to enable him to meet his
savage opponents on a more equal footing, led to the bloody
defeat.”
Braddock’s forces left Alexandria in two detachments. One
passed north through Virginia to the meeting-place at Fort
Cumberland, while the other marched along the Potomac to
the ferry and then crossed over to Georgetown, whence they
proceeded by the Frederick Road.
According to tradition, the English commander landed at a
large rock, a portion of which is still to be seen in Potomac
Park, although it is now below the existing level to the south
1 Montealm and Wolfe. Francis Parkman.
Narrative and Critical History of America. Justin Winsor,
Vol. V.
Voi. I—=F
66 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
of the grounds of the Naval Medical School Hospital. This
rock has long borne the name of Braddock’s Rock, but in the
early records of this locality it was known as the Key of Keys
or Quay of all Quays.
At that time it was a part of a large formation on the banks
of the river, now separated from it by nearly a quarter of a
mile of filled ground. It afforded a good landing-place. It
was from this quarry-like formation that stone was taken that
was used in the foundations of the capitol and the White
House. As to Braddock’s using that landing for his troops
on their way from Alexandria, it seems a reasonable conjecture
that he would rather have chosen the regular ferry landing at
Georgetown, a short distance farther up the river. In this
way the soldiers would have been on the same side of Rock
Creek as the Frederick Road, which was the point of destina-
tion, instead of landing on the east side of the Creek and then
fording that stream.
The residents of Georgetown were represented in the Mary-
land Provincials equipped for service in the war, and a company
under the command of Alexander Beall, the surveyor of the town,
with Samuel Wade Magruder as lieutenant, went to the front.”
To raise a revenue to meet the expenses of the war, the
Maryland assembly in 1765 placed a tax on the estates of
bachelors, and among those who fell in that class were the
following living in and near the present District of Columbia.
Hugh Riley, Rock Creek, Nathaniel Magruder, Inspector
Rock Creek, Robert Peter, in Georgetown, Anthony Holmead,
near the mouth of Rock Creek, Walter Eavins, on the Eastern
Branch, Baston Lucas, near the Eastern Branch, William
Needham, Bladensburg, Robert Mundell, Georgetown, and
Archibald Orme, north of Rock Creek.’
1 The records of Braddock’s expedition and contemporary accounts
afford no clew of the exact spot where the landing was made. The
case of the upholders of the east and of the west side of Rock Creek is
to be found in Braddock’s Rock, by Marcus Benjamin, Washington,
1899, and in Old Georgetown, by Hugh T. Taggart.
2 Old Georgetown. Taggart, p. 165.
>The Rise of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the District of
Columbia. Arthur S. Brown, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 9.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 67
Trade considerations appearing as an influence in a con-
ference on a purely military question such as the one that took
place between the commander of the English forces and the
governors of the colonies of Maryland and Virginia serves to
illustrate their vital place in the lives and thoughts of the
people. As pointed out in a previous chapter, an event of
such significance as the calling of a convention of the repre-
sentatives of all the states to devise a better form of govern-
ment, and the beginning of the movement which resulted in
the framing of the constitution of the United States had its
inception in the proposal to bring together representatives of
the two states of Maryland and Virginia to consider trade
regulation for the Potomac River. But long before the year
1785 the need of providing facilities for carrying on the com-
merce of the Potomac region had led to serious and repeated
efforts to make that river navigable. The first examination
of the river, to ascertain its navigability from Fort Cumber-
land to Alexandria, was made in January, 1755, by Governor
Sharpe, of Maryland, and Sir John St. Clair, and the conclusion
was then reached that the river could be made free for the
passage of boats by the removal of the rocks at the Great Falls.
But nothing was done.!
During the years 1770-1772 and 1774 Washington visited
the sources of the Potomac and made careful studies of the
country lying to the west between that point and the navigable
waters of the western rivers. Surveys were also made by
others. Portions of Washington’s Journals giving accounts
of these trips were published in the newspapers of the day.”
In 1770 Washington pointed out in a letter to the governor
of Maryland the advantages to that state and to Virginia of
making the Potomac “a channel of commerce between Great
Britain and that immense territory.” The response to this
and other efforts was the passage by the Virginia assembly in
1 History of Cumberland, Md. W. H. Lowdermilk, Washington,
1877.
2A New Chapter in the Early Life of Washington. John Pickell,
New York, 1856.
68 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the year 1772 of an act creating a company with authority
to render the Potomac navigable from Fort Cumberland to
tide-water. In the same year John Ballandine, the owner of a
tract of land at Little Falls, endeavored to enlist interest in
the colony and among English merchants in a plan for improving
the navigation of the river, and among his subscribers are en-
rolled the names of George Washington, Thomas Johnson, Jr.,
Thomas Ringgold, William Deakins, Jr., Francis Deakins and
Charles Carroll of Carrollton. But these efforts resulted in
nothing.!
Again in 1774 a bill for the Potomac improvement was
brought by Washington before the Virginia assembly, of which
he was a member, but the divergence of interests, and more
particularly the absorption of the public mind in the issues
involved in the opening of the great contest with Great Britain
for independence, served to prevent final action. Shortly
after the close of the revolutionary war Washington in his
retirement at Mt. Vernon resumed the advocacy of his favorite
project and engaged in an extensive correspondence on the
subject.
Jefferson shared his views in this particular, and with him as
well as with Washington at this time the general welfare of
the people by this binding together two great sections of the
country was the prime consideration. In the year 1784 the
Potomac Company was chartered by Virginia, and in the
following year by Maryland. This action by the two states
was taken in furtherance of a report made by a commission
composed of representatives both from Maryland and Virginia
favoring the improvement of the Potomac. Washington was
one of the representatives of Virginia, while a member of the
Maryland delegation was Gustavus Scott, afterwards one of
the commissioners of the city of Washington.
Thomas Johnson of Frederick, Md., who had in congress
in 1775 nominated Washington as commander-in-chief of the
army, was a member of the board of directors. In after years
Washington selected Johnson to serve on the first board of
1OQOld Georgetown. Taggart, p. 177.
-
DESCRIPTION OF THE POTOMAC REGION 69
commissioners for the city of Washington. As president of
the Potomac Company, which was organized in 1785, Wash-
ington was the active spirit in the enterprise. He terminated
his official connection with the company only when he became
the head of the new government of the country.
The plan adopted by the Potomac Company, and which it
attempted to carry out, was what was termed “sluice naviga-
tion” in the improvement of the bed of the river by the removal
of rocks, and forming a channel, which was the usual mode of
securing inland navigation in England. At that period there
was in that country but one example of the type of an indepen-
dent canal with locks and the utility of that method had not at
that time been satisfactorily demonstrated. In addition, the
sluice method was cheaper, an important consideration in
promoting an enterprise in a country that had just engaged in
an exhausting war. In fact, it was with difficulty the stock of
the company was placed and the instalments paid.!
Besides removing obstacles from the bed of the river, the
company built canals around the Little Falls, the Great Falls,
Seneca Falls, Shenandoah and House Falls. The works on
the Virginia side of Great Falls may still be seen for a good
part of the course. The passage was cut through the solid
rock. After expending nearly three quarters of a million of
dollars, and after the lapse of about thirty-five years, the object
of the company had only been partially accomplished, and it
was succeeded by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in
1828, and the independent canal plan was then adopted.
During the period of the existence of the Potomac Company,
although a considerable sum of money was collected for tolls
which were first levied in 1799, yet the only navigation possible
was during the time of floods and freshets, as a joint commis-
sion of Maryland and Virginia appointed to examine the affairs
of the company declared in the year 1823. According to the
same authority “The whole time when goods and produce
1 Report to the stockholders on the completion of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company to Cumberland with a sketch of the Potomac
Company, Frederick, 1851.
70 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
could be stream borne on the Potomac in the course of an
entire year did not exceed forty-five days.”
Boats of slight draught were used in the descent of the river,
and after discharging their cargoes were broken up. The
more pretentious vessels made the return trip, but that was
done by the laborious process of “poling.” Even under such
conditions quite a volume of trade passed down the Potomac,
thus making Georgetown a centre for a good deal of the com-
merce from the lakes and the west.!
1TIn a paper signed by a number of business men of Georgetown,
Oct. 13, 1790, offering their lands in the vicinity of Georgetown as a
site for the federal town, it is enumerated among the advantages of
the place that ‘‘There is seldom any swell at Georgetown, never one
quarter of a mile above it. The vessels, therefore, which bring the
produce down the river, can empty at Georgetown, which from their
construction and the swell in the river, it is thought they can never do
much below.’”’ U.S. vs. M. F. Morris, et al., Potomac Flats Case.
Record, Vol. VII, p. 2160. From war department manuscript.
CHAPTER IV
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR
THE spirit of resistance to the assertion of the claim on the
part of England of the right of taxing the colonies as a source
of revenue to that government found early expression in the
colonies of Virginia and Maryland. The stamp act was the
first of these measures to become a law by the approval of
George III in February, 1765, and in May the Virginia as-
sembly, fired by the eloquence of Patrick Henry, adopted
resolutions which “started the fire.” George Johnston of
Alexandria was one of the supporters of these resolutions.
The law requiring the affixing of stamps on all papers was
to go into effect in November of that year, but when George
Mercer, distributor of stamps for Virginia, arrived in Hampton
in October, 1765, he was given a hostile reception, and the
attitude of the people was such that he engaged not to under-
take the execution of the stamp act.
Zachariah Hood, the stamp distributor for Maryland, was
burned in effigy upon his arrival in Annapolis, and the stamps
were not landed in the state but taken to New York, where
General Gage, the commander of the English forces in this
country, was stationed. The courts of Maryland and Virginia
held that business could be transacted without the use of
stamps, and so instructed the court officers.
Both Maryland and Virginia indorsed the plan for a meeting
of delegates from all the colonies, and while the former sent
representatives to the so-called stamp congress that met in
New York in October, 1765, Virginia only failed because pre-
vented by its royalist governor.
William Murdock, one of Maryland’s deputies, was the son
of Rey. George Murdock, the first rector of Rock Creek
71
72 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
parish, and married the daughter of Colonel Thomas Addison,
who built and occupied a fine house on Oxen Run opposite
Alexandria. From Colonel Addison he received a portion of
a tract of land known as Friendship and occupied a house which
stood on the present site of the American University.!
The stamp act was repealed in March, 1767, and another
revenue measure was devised which was finally limited to a
duty on tea; but true to the principle advocated of no taxation
without representation both Virginia and Maryland stood with
the other colonies against receiving the tea in this country.
Virginia was the first colony to adopt the plan of an inter-
colonial committee of correspondence, and thus led the way,
as Bancroft pointed out, to a confederation of the colonies.
In Maryland the convention formed of representatives of the
people was active in opposition to the measures of England
and finally became the government of the colony. When the
people of Boston were punished by England by the act closing
the port of that city, Virginia expressed her sentiments in
regard to that measure by declaring a day of fasting and prayer,
and in consequence the assembly was promptly dissolved by
the governor. Everywhere in both colonies the use of foreign
goods was discouraged and home manufactures advocated,
while it became the fashion to wear homespun and to go with-
out tea.”
There was also material support given to the common cause.
In August, 1774, the inhabitants of Alexandria in a few hours
subscribed 350 pounds for the relief of the distressed towns of
Boston and Charleston, while shiploads of provisions were
sent from both colonies. Committees of correspondence were
formed in the various counties to see that the non-importation
agreement was carried out. Such action was indorsed in
1 University Courier, Vol. III, p. 7.
2 The son of Rev. Stephen B. Balch, the Presbyterian minister
of Georgetown, relates in Reminiscences of Georgetown, first lecture,
p. 15, “‘My father has repeatedly told me that the ladies of George-
town positively refused to drink tea during the progress of the Revolu-
tion. Even the cups used at his wedding in the year 1782 were not
much larger than a thimble.”’
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 73
Frederick County at a public meeting held, June 14, 1774, at
Charles Hungerford’s tavern, where the town of Rockville
was subsequently established.
During that summer the committees of Charles County
and Frederick County considered the case of a ship arrived
in St. Mary’s River with a consignment of two chests of tea
to Robert Findlay, a merchant in Bladensburg, one to John
Ferguson, a factor for Messrs. Findlay & Co., and one chest
to Robert Peter, a merchant in Georgetown. These gentlemen
were called before the committee, and as the narrative of the
affair states, their attention was*called to the passing of the
Boston port bill, and also to the sense of America respecting
the consequences of receiving such consignments, and they
all agreed not to receive the tea, and in case it should be de-
livered they would place it in the custody of Messrs. Thomas
Johns, William Deakins and Bernard O’Neal to wait the
further direction of the committee.!
Thomas Richardson, also a Georgetown merchant, was before
the committee on a similar mission and the same disposition
was made as was done in the other case and the merchants
were thanked for their disinterested behavior. When a vessel
arrived in October, 1774, at Annapolis with over 2000 pounds
of tea on board, the committee of Ann Arundel County called
the consigners before it, and one of them voluntarily offered
to burn the ship with its cargo, which was accordingly done.
In the meantime the first continental congress had assembled
in Philadelphia, Frederick County, being represented by Thomas
Johnson, while George Washington was the delegate of the upper
Potomac section of Virginia. In the fall of 1774 among the
members of the Frederick County committee were Jacob Funk,
William Deakins, Bernard O’Neal, Francis Deakins, Brooke
Beall, Joseph Threlkeld, Walter Smith and Thomas Beall, all
of Georgetown or its vicinity except the first named.
The readiness with which those who had brought tea into
the colonies complied with the directions of these committees
even at a great pecuniary sacrifice is a sufficient indication of
1 American Archives. 4th Series, Vol. 1, p. 704.
74 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the state of the public mind, for there is no question that public
sentiment, and that too of an aroused and dangerous character,
made effective and to a large extent shaped the action of these
bodies. A rather unique form of punishment was devised by
the committee for the upper portion of Frederick County that
met at Elizabethtown, now Hagerstown, Nov. 28, 1774. The
case was that of a man who had deceived the committee about
the location of a chest of tea sent to him. In view of this latter
circumstance the committee decided that he “should go with
his hat off and with lighted torches in his hand and set fire
to the tea, which he accordingly did. ... The committee
was also of the opinion that no further intercourse should be
held with him.” ?
As the result of the recommendations of the continental
congress, a meeting was held in Upper Marlboro in November,
1774, and a committee was appointed to carry into execution
in the county the association of congress. In the list of
members of this committee appear the names of William Dea-
kins, Sr., John Addison and Thomas Gant, Jr. ?
Towards the close of the year at Annapolis a convention of
deputies for the entire state urged an increase in the flocks of
sheep in order to promote woollen manufacture; also to use
every effort to promote the manufacture of linen and cotton.
Further it was resolved “that if the assumed power of parlia-
ment to tax the colonies shall be attempted to be carried into
execution by force in the Massachusetts colony or in any other
colony that the province of Maryland will support such colony
to the utmost of its power.”
The resolutions recommended that militia companies be
formed. Of the 10,000 pounds to be raised in the state for arms
and ammunition the proportion allotted to Prince George County
1 American Archives. 4th Series, Vol. 1, and for much revolution-
ary war matter following.
? William Deakins, Sr., was the son of John Deakins, an English-
man who came to this country the early part of the seventeenth cen-
tury and settled in Maryland. He was a resident of Prince George
County. He had three sons, William, Jr., Francis and Leonard, all of
whom became residents of Georgetown some time before the revolution.
-
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 75
was 833 pounds, to Frederick County, 1333 pounds, to Charles
County, 800 pounds and to St. Mary’s County, 600 pounds.‘
On the 18th of July, 1774, a meeting of freeholders was held
at Alexandria, George Washington presiding. Resolutions
were adopted, giving assurance of support to the other colonies
in opposition to the duties and making provision for receiving
no more taxed goods. At a meeting held the following January,
action relative to the formation of a militia was taken similar
to that of the Prince George County convention of Maryland.
The committee of the latter county had already announced a
plan for raising ten companies of sixty-eight men each in the
county, and of this number two companies were to be formed
at Bladensburg and its neighborhood, one at Broad Creek and
one at Upper Marlboro. Notley Young was a member of this
committee. It was directed by the Frederick County com-
mittee that subscriptions to the quota of the county of
the state fund for arms would be raised in Georgetown by
William Deakins, Thomas Johns and Walter Smith.
The committee on June 21, 1775, decided to raise two com-
panies of expert riflemen to represent Frederick County in the
contest with the mother country, which the events at Concord
and Lexington a few weeks before had demonstrated was to
be submitted to the arbitrament of the sword. One of these
companies had as its captain, Michael Cresap, while the other
was led by Thomas Price.
Captain Cresap was a frontiersman, and like his father had
hunted through the unbroken wilderness of the section of
western Maryland that was the gateway to the vaster wilder-
ness of the Ohio Valley. In this border-land he had spent his
life, and his name had come to be associated in the current talk
of the day with the murder of the family of the Indian chief
Logan. Jefferson repeated this popular version of the trans-
action in his Notes on Virginia, but since then the responsibility
for that frontier tragedy has been shown to belong to another.
Captain Cresap’s company left Frederick, July 18, 1775, and
marched to Cambridge, where, after travelling five hundred
and fifty miles, they arrived August 8. The one hundred and
76 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
thirty men forming the company were, like their leader, from
the backwoods. The men were painted like Indians, as was
the practice of many of the hunters of those days. They
were armed with tomahawks and rifles, wore hunting
shirts and moccasins and as an eyewitness of their departure
from Frederick records, “though some of them had travelled
near eight hundred miles from the banks of the Ohio, they
seem to walk light and easy.”
“They need nothing,” he adds with pride, “except water
from the spring, with a little parched corn, with what they
easily procure in hunting.” ?
The battle of Bunker Hill occurred June 17, 1775, and
Washington chosen commander-in-chief by congress two days be-
fore on the nomination of Thomas Johnson of Frederick County,
was in command of the army and welcomed this early reénforce-
ment of the Massachusetts militia that then constituted the
young army of the new republic.
Scharf, in his History of Western Maryland, says Cresap’s
company was the first from the south to reach Cambridge. A
company of Virginia riflemen under the command of Captain
Daniel Morgan arrived in Cambridge some days later. One of
the battalions of Frederick County raised in 1776 was officered
largely by residents in and about Georgetown. The colonel
was John Murdock, the lieutenant colonel, Thomas Johns,
the first major, William Brooke, and the second major, Wil-
liam Deakins, Jr. Another local company was commanded
by Thomas Richardson, with Alexander McFadden as first
lieutenant and John Peter the second lieutenant. One of
the companies in the regiment that took part in the defence of
Fort Washington and in other engagements around New York
City was commanded by Thomas Beall, who subsequently
reached the rank of colonel. It was composed of Georgetown
men.”
1 American Archives. 4th Series, Vol. 3. Extract of a letter to a
gentleman in Philadelphia, dated Frederickstown, Md., Aug. 1, 1775.
?In Vol. 12, Maryland Archives, Md. Council of Safety, p. 352,
is recorded under date of Oct. 15, 1776, the formation of a Georgetown
company under command of Richard Smith, Capt., Lieuts. Walter
-
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR a7.
Leonard M. Deakins and his brother Francis Deakins marched
from Georgetown in the summer of 1776 at the head of com-
panies recruited in and about Georgetown. Uriah Forrest and
James M. Lingan, both identified with Georgetown and the
city of Washington in later years, served in the revolutionary
army. One writer describes the “famous Maryland line”’ as
“the backbone of the army.” !
Thomas Johnson of Frederick was elected brigadier-general
of the Maryland militia in June, 1776, but owing to his duties
as delegate to the continental congress did not serve. He was
chosen the first governor of Maryland under the constitution
adopted in 1776. The skill of John Yoast of Georgetown
was utilized by the Maryland authorities, and a large number
of muskets made at his shop were used by the troops. During
the summer of 1776 much apprehension was created by the
movements of the British war vessels in the lower Potomac,
and two actually did ascend the river as far as Quantico, where
the troops landed and burned the house of William Brent, and
having done “all the mischief in our power,” as Lord Dunmore
in command states in an official despatch, the enemy retired.
The growth of the population throughout Frederick County
had for some time made the government of such an extended
territory too great a strain upon the machinery of a Maryland
county and was also a source of inconvenience to the inhab-
itants. As soon as the outbreak of the war made it necessary
for frequent codperation on the part of its citizens, Frederick
County was practically divided to meet the emergency for
prompt action. A committee was appointed for the upper
portion of the county and one for the lower portion. The
central meeting-place for the former was Frederick, while that
for the latter was Hungerford’s Tavern, where the town of
Rockville was subsequently laid out.
In 1776, when a state constitution was adopted, Frederick
White and Thomas Hayes, Ensign, Thomas Sprigg. Some additional
army appointments are in Vol. 16, pp. 296 ana 373. See also Old
Georgetown. Taggart, p. 186.
1 Maryland, proprietary, province and state. Bernard C. Steiner
in Men of Mark of Maryland, Washington, 1907.
78 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
County was divided into three portions, the lower part being
erected into the county of Montgomery in honor of General
Montgomery, who lost his life in 1775 at Quebec. The central
portion was designated as Frederick County, and the upper as
Washington County. Rockville was chosen as the county
seat, and seven years later notice was given of a petition of the
inhabitants of Montgomery County to the assembly, asking
for the removal of the court-house from Rockville to George-
town, but that petition was not granted.1 As one of the
justices of the peace, William Deakins was a member of the first
county court.
1 Maryland Journal, Feb. 26, 1783.
CHAPTER V
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL, COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS
A LITTLE more than a year after the battle of Lexington,
Maryland and Virginia organized state governments and
adopted constitutions. In both instances a notable feature was
the provision for religious liberty, although in the case of Virginia,
the declaration of rights drafted by Jefferson, and which fully
enunciated the rights of the individual conscience in religious
matters, was not adopted until ten years later. In Maryland,
the laws providing for the support of the clergy of the Protes-
tant Episcopal Church by taxes levied on the entire com-
munity were done away with, and the form of church establish-
ment in existence in that colony since 1692 came to an end.
The struggle in Virginia over the question of the public support
of the ministry, where it had the sanction of law from the early
days of the colony, was pretracted for three years, until finally
in 1779 the system of tithes was abolished, the existing law on
the subject having been suspended from year to year since the
beginning of the movement towards disestablishment.’
In Virginia the rigor of the laws against protestant dissenters
had been modified in 1699 in harmony with the English law
passed ten years previously, and which conceded to those
taking the oath of allegiance and supremacy and subscribing
to a declaration against the real presence the right to worship
in their own meeting houses provided such places were regularly
registered and the ministers were licensed. But there was no
recognition of the rights of Catholics, and Quakers were also
outlawed. As a consequence of the legal restrictions, there were
but few dissenters in Virginia. It was not until nearly the close
1 Religious Toleration in Virginia. Henry R. Mellvane, J. H. U.
Historical and Political Studies. 12th Series.
79
80 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
of the seventeenth century that a Presbyterian church was or-
ganized in the colony, and the first dissenting minister legally
authorized to preach in Virginia was Rey. Francis Make-
mie, who qualified under the toleration act in 1699, and was
pastor of a Presbyterian church on the Elizabeth River.?
In Maryland, where toleration in religion had been adopted
by Lord Baltimore, the founder of the colony, as it wasin Penn-
sylvania under William Penn, the policy had changed, in-
fluenced largely no doubt by the bitter and violent contentions
and conflicts that marked the reign of the house of Stuart.
The rigors of religious intoleration and persecution as ex-
pressed in the laws were severe and complete. But it is a
pleasant reflection even at this distance of time, that for some
years prior tothe revolution, while the laws remained unchanged,
their enforcement gradually became less vigorous, owing in
part to the common danger felt in communities close to the
frontier, as was the case both with Virginia and Maryland
during the French and Indian war, and the need of united
action with the mother country, so, as one writer declares,
“before the adoption of the constitution religious toleration
was practically secured.” But the people favored religious
liberty, and not merely toleration, and the declaration of that
principle was a distinctive feature of the new state governments
set up in Maryland and Virginia; so that in these states the
penal laws against Catholics were removed from the statute
books, as was also done in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The
restrictions laid on the freedom of action of the dissenters were
removed.
1In an account of the country which Mr. Makemie published in
London in 1705, he makes a statement about brick in the new country
which gives support to the contention of those who are sceptical on
the subject of the importation of this building material into the coun-
try from Europe. He says, ‘‘Here are in most places bricks to be
made at every man’s door for building.’”” Quoted in The Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, in an account of a book
written by Makemie and entitled A Plain and Friendly Persuasive
to the Inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for Promoting Towns and
Cohabitations.
2 Religious Toleration in Virginia. Henry R. Mcllvane.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 81
The increase in the population of the country along the
upper Potomac can be traced to some extent in the develop-
ment of the Episcopal Church, which continued to be the es-
tablished church in both colonies down to the separation from
the mother country. One of the four parishes created in
Charles County upon the establishment of the Episcopal
Church in Maryland in the year 1692 was Piscataway Parish.
It is recorded that the first parish meeting was held at the
residence of John Addison at Oxen Run, opposite Alexandria,
and a short distance south of the bounds of the District of
Columbia.
A church edifice was built three years later near the mouth
of Broad Creek, which flows into the Potomac below Fort
Foote. It was not until 1712 that the first service was held
within the bounds of the District and at that time the rector of
Broad Creek Church or St. John’s Church, as it was officially
known, was directed to preach in the Eastern Branch Hundred,
on Sundays, once a month.!
Seven years later Colonel John Bradford, a member of the
vestry of St. John’s, presented for church uses at a meeting of
the inhabitants of the Eastern Branch and Rock Creek Hundred
one hundred acres of land, which now form the glebe and
cemetery of Rock Creek or St. Paul’s Parish. With the Eastern
Branch as a dividing line, the country to the north was set off
in the year 1726 as Prince George’s Parish. A frame structure
was erected on the Bradford tract, but was replaced by the
brick structure still standing with the exception of some changes,
and which was completed in 1775. In the year 1738 a chapel
was built about one mile east of Rockville, which was served
by the rector of Rock Creek. About half a mile from the
eastern corner of the District on the road from Bladensburg,
in the year 1748, a brick chapel was erected called Addison’s
Chapel and also St. Matthew’s Chapel.’
1The old English territorial division of one hundred settlers, of
whom ten families constituted a tithing.
2 Rise of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the District of Colum-
bia. Arthur S. Browne, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 9.
VoL. I—@G
82 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
On the south side of the Potomac, where the spread of the
population was slower than was the case on the Maryland side,
the parish of Fairfax was erected in 1765, when a vestry was
chosen, George Washington being of the number. He did not
serve, however, as he was elected the same year a vestryman
of Pohick Church, which was near his home at Mt. Vernon.
The parish church of Fairfax was known as Falls Church,
and was located some six miles to the west of the site of Wash-
ington and so named from the proximity of the Little Falls of
the Potomac. Here was located a tobacco inspection house, as
well as one at Alexandria, but it may be concluded from the
placing of the principal church of the parish at the Falls, as
it was called, although several miles from the banks of the
river, that it was then regarded as more central to the members
of the parish than Alexandria, where what was known as a
minor church or chapel of ease was located.
Brick structures were erected at both places, the one at
Alexandria being completed in 1773. In the latter church a
pew was purchased by George Washington, and he was accus-
tomed to attend services there, so that the edifice of Christ
Church, Alexandria, associated with the first president has
always been one of the historic spots in that Virginia town.
It stands to-day changed, but much the same as when built.
It has escaped the indignity which befell both the Pohick and
the Falls churches, in being deserted and left to the mercy of
the elements. Both of these latter structures in later years
were restored, and are again used asthe pious founders intended.!
The Presbyterian Church gained an early foothold in this
locality, due no doubt to the adherents of that denomination from
Scotland and Ireland and England that formed a goodly pro-
portion of the settlers, as planters, or as factors and merchants.2
As far as the influence of any one man can be traced in the
history of the development of the Presbyterian Church in this
? Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia. Bishop Meade,
Vol. 2, p. 256, Philadelphia, 1857.
2 Notice of a meeting of The St. Andrew’s Society, Columbian
Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, Nov. 28, 1792.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 83
region it is recognized that Ninian Beall of Upper Marlboro, as
it was then called, or Marlboro, as it is to-day, was a potent fac-
tor. A native of Fife, Scotland, he came to this country about
1669 and settled at Marlboro. He lived to the advanced age
of one hundred and seven “and was buried probably at Fife
Large, one of his farms on the Eastern Branch just beyond
Bennings.”’ 4
A man of large business interests and of extensive property
holdings, occupying a position of influence in the community,
due in part to his services in the struggle of the colony with the
Indians, he was able to contribute in means and in ability to
advancing the interests of the church with which he was identi-
fied. As early as the year 1704 he gave ground at Marlboro
where a church building was erected, thus making that church
among the earliest of such organizations even in Maryland,
where the Presbyterian Church in America had its origin.
Bladensburg, located at the head of the navigation of the
Eastern Branch, followed Marlboro, that lay on the parallel
stream of the Patuxent in contributing to the growth of the
church. An organization was formed there in 1719, nearly a
quarter of a century before Bladensburg had become of sufficient
importance to be laid out as a town, and while it was still only
the tobacco port of Garrison Landing. ‘The minister serving
at Bladensburg probably as early as 1787 also held services at
Cabin John, some six miles north of Georgetown, which were
no doubt attended by the adherents of that denomination living
in Georgetown.
A Presbyterian church was erected at the southeast corner of
M and 30th streets, Georgetown, in 1782. Rev. Thomas
Bloomer Balch served as pastor for the first fifty years of its
existence. Dr. Balch married the great-granddaughter of
Ninian Beall and granddaughter of George Beall, the owner
of the land where the town was located.
1 Reminiscences of Georgetown, D.C. Rev. T. B. Balch, Wash-
ington, 1859.
2The Beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in the District of
Columbia. Coll. His. Soc., Vol. 8.
84 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Presbyterian worship began in Alexandria as early as 1764,
and a church building was erected there in 1774, which indicates
the progress in the relaxation in the enforcement of laws against
dissenters in Virginia.
As Catholic worship was forbidden in Maryland, except in
private families, or in chapels connected with houses of priests,
and was not permitted at all in Virginia, the church prior to the
close of the revolutionary war had an uncertain existence.!
Maryland had been from the beginning a mission field for the
Jesuit Fathers, and two of them accompanied the first of Lord
Baltimore’s settlers to this country. Subsequently, owing to
differences of opinion between Lord Baltimore and the Jesuits
over the assertion of the latter of the independence of ecclesias-
tical law to secular law, he requested that they be recalled and
secular clergy sent in their places. The controversy was
settled by the Jesuits conceding the position taken by Lord
Baltimore.”
The Jesuits continued their missionary labors in Maryland,
and among other centres had an establishment at Port Tobacco,
some thirty miles south of Washington, and it is supposed that
priests from that place visited the Catholic families in and about
the District and in private houses performed the offices of the
church. The house of Ann Young, and when afterwards oc-
cupied by her son, Notley Young, on G Street, S. W., according
to tradition was often the scene of religious services, as was that
of Richard Queen, erected about 1722, in the northeastern
section of the District, where Langdon is situated and where
afterwards Queen’s Chapel was built.
Two years before the war for independence broke out, a young
priest arrived in this country from Europe. This was Rey.
John Carroll, who subsequently rose to the dignity of the
head of the Catholic Church in this country and was the first
Catholic bishop in America. The brother of Daniel Carroll
1 At the close of the war Bishop Carroll states there were but nine-
teen priests in Maryland and five in Pennsylvania. Life and Times
of the Most Rev. John Carroll. John G. Shea, New York, 1888.
? Church and State in Early Maryland. By George Petrie. J. H.
U. Historical and Political Studies, Series IV.
-
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 85
of Rock Creek, he was born in Upper Marlboro, and when quite
a youth went abroad to be educated and subsequently entered
the Jesuit order.
Soon after the suppression of that order by the pope, the young
priest returned to this country, arriving here in the summer of
1774. He went at once to his mother’s home near Forest Glen,
Maryland. Here he gathered a congregation, and soon a
church building was erected at Forest Glen known as St.
John’s Church. Near the site of the original structure is the
present church edifice of St. John, and in the nearby cemetery
lie the remains of the bishop’s mother.!
The missionary services of Rev. Mr. Carroll were at this
time extended to the locality about Acquia Creek, where his
two sisters lived. One had married William Brent, whose
home was in Richland, Stafford County, Virginia, and a relative,
Robert Brent, who lived at Acquia, was the husband of another
sister.2 St. John’s Church was a frame building thirty feet
square, and it remained standing as late as the year
1844.3
The first building of which there is authentic record, erected
within the bounds of the District for Catholic worship, was
built on a lot that was deeded in 1787 by John Threlkeld to
Rev. John Carroll, the latter ten years later being created
bishop. The site was on the north side of N Street, between
35th and 36th streets, and within a block of the ground that
was about the same time acquired by the Jesuits for the loca-
tion of what became Georgetown College. The building on N
Street was begun in 1788 and completed in 1792, and was used
1The probable date of the erection of the first church building is
1775. ‘‘A room in the manor at Rock Creek was the first church.
Soon the erection of St. John’s Church was begun about half a mile
from his residence. It was, from all we know, the first church under
secular clergy established in Maryland, and the first after St. Peter’s,
Baltimore, raised by a congregation which supported a pastor.”
Biographical Sketch of the Most Rev. John Carroll. John Carroll
Brent, Baltimore, 1848.
2 The same.
3 Life and Times of Bishop Carroll. U.S. Catholic Magazine,
III, p. 365.
86 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
by the congregation of Trinity Parish, the first pastor of which
was Rey. Francis O’Neal. Trinity parochial school now oc-
cupies the site of the building.
The first church building erected in Georgetown and the
second within the present bounds of the District was located
on the site now occupied by the edifice of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church at the northwest corner of Wisconsin Avenue
and Volta Place. It was then known as a Lutheran church.
The lot was a donation from Charles Beatty and George Fraser
Hawkins, as expressed in a deed dated May 17, 1770, placing on
record their addition to Georgetown of 208 acres of “a part
of a tract of land called Knaves Disappointment lying and
being in Frederick County, in the province aforesaid and ad-
joining Georgetown, formerly the property of Mr. George
Gordon, late of Frederick County, deceased.”’ 4
The Maryland act of Dec. 31, 1796, states that the streets
and lots of this addition were originally laid out in 1769, and
one of the purposes of the deed made in 1770 was to give legal
effect to a disposition of the lots through a lottery. A church
building of logs was at once erected, and services were held
there, but irregularly, as the congregation was too feeble to
support a permanent pastor. The building, which had about
it a graveyard, fell into decay, and some forty years after its
erection was in ruins. A second building was not erected until
the year 1835.
Two lots in the town site of Hamburg were assigned by the
proprietor, Jacob Funk, in the year 1768 “tothe Dutch Germans
in said town of Hamburg,” but this gift was not. utilized until
the latter part of the early half of the nineteenth century,
when the Concordia German Evangelical Church was or-
ganized, and succeeded, after considerable litigation, in mak-
ing use of both lots for church purposes, selling one and
erecting in 1833 on the other an edifice at the southeast corner
1 Land Record W. folio 254, records of the county clerk’s office of
Frederick County, Md. The deed is given in full in the History of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Georgetown. Luther Hess Waring
(Washington, 1909], from which other facts of the history of the church
are taken.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 87
of 20th and G streets, N. W., where is still located the church
home.! h .
The Baptist denomination did not begin to get a foothold in
this section of the country until after the revolutionary war.
As late as the year 1790 only one church of that denomination
was found in Maryland, and that had a membership of thirty-
two. It was located at Seneca in Montgomery County. At
that period there were three Baptist churches in Fairfax County
and five in Loudoun County, Va.?
Methodist preachers visited this section of the country as early
as 1772, when Francis Asbury, the first bishop of the church in
the United States, was among the preachers who found their
way to Georgetown. But the society had no place of worship
in that place until 1795, when a church edifice was erected in the
middle of the block on the east side of 28th Street between N
and Olive streets. Taking its new name from its present
location, it is now known as the Dumbarton Avenue Church.
There is a record also of the visits of early itinerants, both at
Alexandria and at Bladensburg.?
While there are no official statistics of the population of the
various places in and about the District prior to the first United
States Census of 1790, still it is apparent there was a steady
growth in the number of the inhabitants, which was especially
1 These provisions for a German population in the vicinity of George-
town shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century are curious,
and undoubtedly point to an expectation of the direction of the tide
of German settlement from the region of the upper Potomac to tide-
water. Such expectations were not realized, as the tendency proved
to be through the Shenandoah Valley rather than along the shores of
the Potomac, although a number of German farmers settled in Loudoun
County, Va., and in the lower part of Frederick County.
2 Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination in North America.
John Asplund, 1791.
’'The year 1795 is only a probable date, as it is inferred that ‘the
new chapel” in Georgetown mentioned by Bishop Asbury under date
of Nov. 2, 1795, refers to a building on this site. The lot, which was
No. 17 in Holmead’s addition, was not deeded to the trustees of the
church until April 17, 1800. Deed of Anthony Holmead to Lloyd
Beall, Richard Parrott, Samuel Williams, Isaac Owens, Richard Beck,
George Collard and Peter Miller, trustees. Lib. E. f. 238. Centen-
nial Sketch of Methodism in Georgetown. Washington, 1884.
88 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
marked during the years succeeding the war of the revolution.
Evidence of this is found in the establishment of churches.
While the needs of the Catholics were supplied by the chapels
attached to private houses and one such place of worship served
a wide area, the building of Trinity Catholic Church in George-
town shows the creation of a new centre.
Up to the year 1794, when Rev. Walter Dulaney Addison,
who lived at Oxen Run, opposite Alexandria, began holding
services in Georgetown, making use of the Presbyterian Church
of that place in the afternoons, Rock Creek Church was evi-
dently attended by the residents of Georgetown belonging to
that denomination, as their names appear in the list of mem-
bers of the early vestries. In 1789, when a lottery was devised
for raising the sum of $1500 for the erection of a new building,
the names of the following Georgetown citizens appeared in the
list of managers: Colonel William Deakins, Robert Peter,
Benjamin Stoddert, John Peter, Bernard O’Neil, John Threl-
keld and Colonel George Beall, as did that of Anthony Hol-
mead, who lived on the east side of Rock Creek. The drawing
was announced to be held at John Suter’s Tavern, George-
town.
Of that other institution, the school, that shared with the
church in raising the standard of life, it did not receive in the
states outside of New England the support from public taxa-
tion which in later years came to be such a marked feature of
public polity in this country. Virginia had an admirable law
in its intent which was framed by Thomas Jefferson in 1779
but not adopted by the legislature until 1796. Then the execu-
tion of the law was intrusted to the county courts and was not
put into effective operation.
The purpose of this measure was to provide free schools in
every hamlet or township where the elements of education
should be taught. The Maryland act of 1696 provided a
free school in each county to be supported by the export duties
on furs and skins, while later legislation placed the support
of the schools as a charge on the general tax fund. But the
1 Times and Patowmack Packet, Noy. 25, 1789.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 89
funds were inadequate, and the schools either sank into decay
or else were closed. ’
The condition is illustrated by the course pursued in 1774,
when the county schools of St. Mary’s, Charles and Prince
George counties were united and the one school became Char-
lotte Hall in St. Mary’s County, Md. Such legislation was
either in advance of public opinion or of the resources of the
community. At any rate, money from public taxation was
not provided for the schools, so that the colonial free school
was free merely in the sense of teaching the liberal arts and
was not the free school as the term was understood in later
years in this country. They were the Latin schools or classical
academy.!
Scanty and irregular provision was made for the education
of the children of the poor by private subscription. General
Washington is recorded as an annual subscriber of 50 pounds for
the instruction of poor children in Alexandria. Private schools
were the only means of securing elementary education in
Maryland and Virginia except in the case of those opulent
enough to pay for the services of a tutor. A glimpse of the
situation is given in a sermon by Rev. Thomas Bacon, rector
of St. Peter’s Parish, Talbot County, Md., printed in London
in 1751, in which he observes, “Education is hardly to be at-
tained at any rate by the children of the poor.”
William and Mary College was established in Williamsburg,
Va., in 1693, and in 1782 Washington College was chartered at
Charlestown, on the western shore of the Chesapeake, and three
years later St. John’s College came into existence at Annapolis.
Clergymen commonly combined the duties of teaching with
their ministerial work, and at the same time provided a welcome
addition to their income. Some of these men rose to eminence
in the community. Rev. Samuel Finlay, who in 1761 was
chosen president of Princeton College, conducted a famous
school at Nottingham, Cecil County, Va. Shortly before
1773 Rev. James Hunt, the Presbyterian minister at Bladens-
1The College of William and Mary. Herbert B. Adams, U. S.
Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History.
90 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL .
burg, opened a school at that place which he subsequently
removed to his farm near Rockville. A picture of this school
and its teacher has been given us in the fragment of autobi-
ography left by William Wirt, famous as a lawyer and
writer.
In the year 1797 the prize offered by the American Philo-
sophical Society for the best essay on a system of education and
also a plan for public schools was divided between Rev. Samuel
Knox, a Presbyterian minister at Bladensburg, and Samuel H.
Smith of Philadelphia. The latter three years later established
the National Intelligencer in the city of Washington.
Rev. Stephen B. Balch conducted the Columbian Academy in
Georgetown on the site of 3241 N Street. A graduate of Maris-
chal College, Aberdeen, Scotland, Rev. Mr. Allen located in
Georgetown about the year 1785, where he taught for years.
He followed closely in the wake of the group of seven Scotch
families that came to Georgetown about the year 1785 and
built their homes on 33d Street, south of M Street, which in
after years came to be known as Scotch Row.!
Rey. Walter Dulany Addison, the founder of St. John’s,
the first Episcopal church in Georgetown, set up a school at
Oxen Run, while he was rector of Broad Creek Church.
Through the initiative of Rev. John Carroll action was taken
as early as 1786 for the establishment of a college at Georgetown.
At a meeting of the general chapter of the Jesuits in that year,
it was decided to provide for the erection of such a school, and
a sum of money was appropriated to be raised by the sale of
land in Maryland belonging to the order.
In accordance with this action a tract of 115 acres on Deer
Creek, Hartford County, was sold and applied to this pur-
pose. On this tract a priest’s house and a chapel had been
built in 1747. From this source came almost all the funds
used in starting the institution, although efforts were made to
raise money in England where Rev. Mr. Carroll sent a circular
dated March 30, 1787, inviting subscriptions. The progress
1 Reminiscences of Georgetown, D.C. Rev. T. B. Balch, Washing-
ton, 1859.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 91
made in the erection of the first building is noted in letters
of Rev. Mr. Carroll, who wrote in 1788 that the erection of the
college building had been started, and he hoped to see it covered
that year. In 1791 he writes, “I trust Georgetown academy
will be opened in a few months, Congress has decided to make
that neighborhood and perhaps that town their seat.”
The direct tide of the war of the revolution did not reach
the locality where the District of Columbia was subsequently
fixed. One of the main highways between the north and the
south at that time was from Philadelphia and Chester, along the
east side of the Chesapeake, crossing the latter at Kent Island
opposite Annapolis, and thence to a ferry on the Potomac, a
few miles south of Alexandria. This route was followed mainly
by the army as it went south to encounter the British in that
locality.”
1 Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll. Also The Catholic
Church in Colonial Days. John G. Shea. New York, 1885. Rev.
Mr. Carroll was one of the clergymen on the board of St. John’s Col-
lege that organized that institution. In a letter written in 1790 and
quoted in the “‘Life,’’ he says, ‘‘A college has lately been opened at
Annapolis, under the protection of our state legislature, and amply
endowed by them. It is erected on principles of perfect equality as to
religion. This matter was broached before we formed a plan for our
academy at Georgetown. I see at present no other advantage to us
Catholics in the Annapolis college than this, that it may be a place for
our young lads who have perfected their grammar education at George-
town to pursue higher studies of law, medicine, etc. In other respects
it will be hurtful to our institution.”
From the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, Oct. 4, 1791.
Notice of Georgetown Academy
The academy lately erected at Georgetown, Potomac, will be
opened before the end of this month (October) and admit scholars
provided they have received some instruction in reading and writing,
from which stage of education they will be conducted through the
several branches of useful and classical learning, till they be fitted to
proceed with advantage to the higher sciences in the university of this
or those of the neighboring states.
2 William Wirt, who was born in Bladensburg, records in his remi-
niscences as published in the Memories of the Life of William Wirt,
John P. Kennedy, Phila., 1860, seeing the passing of Lee’s legion
through that village on its way to the south to support General Greene,
and also that during the winter of 1779-1780, while he was attending
92 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The effects of the war in the interruption of the ordinary
pursuits of life as well as the positive drain upon the resources of
the people were felt severely. For the citizens shared with
their fellows throughout the state of Maryland in bearing the
burdens of war in a commonwealth of which a recent writer
has recorded that one tenth of the available military popula-
tion remained constantly in the field, while each year the state
contributed towards the expenses of the army about three
tenths per cent of its entire taxable basis.?
Maryland troops, states another writer, stopped the British
advance at the battle of Long Island and later won laurels
in the south. The Maryland line, at first the independent
companies of 1775, then the flying camp of 1776 and then the
enlistment for three years under the above name, was the back-
bone of the army.”
The beginning of a form of government in the frontier ad-
vance into Kentucky when a Virginia county was organized
by the settlers, and the advance of settlement down the Ohio,
served to push farther into the wilderness the outposts of civili-
zation, so that Fort Cumberland before the close of the struggle
with England had lost much of its character as the extreme out-
lying point in the westward progress. The change due to
the increase in the population and making the soil that had
been waste productive, might be traced to some extent in the
character of the products that came from the back country and
in the growth of such places as Baltimore and Georgetown,
which, after the war, had come to be rivals as the shipping
port for the trade of the entire region of western Maryland
and Virginia.
the classical academy of a Mr. Rogers in Georgetown, he recalls seeing
a long line of wagons crossing the Potomac on the ice, and conjectures
that they were attached to the troops he had seen in Bladensburg.
He also adds that ‘‘the continued musters of militia in Bladensburg
with the drum and fife made me a drummer for a period so early that
I have no recollection of its commencement.”
‘State Government in Maryland, 1777-1781. Beverly W. Bond,
Jr., J. H. U. Studies in History and Political Science, Series XIII.
? Maryland Proprietary, Province and State. Bernard C. Steiner,
in Men of Mark in Maryland. Washington, 1907.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 93
The expansion of the trade in flour resulted in making that
product an important factor with tobacco in the markets as
early as the year 1780. The progress made by Georgetown as a
centre may be inferred from the notice published in the Mary-
land Journal of Feb. 26, 1783, that the inhabitants of Mont-
gomery County intend petitioning the state assembly for the
removal of the court house established at about the geographic
centre of the county at Rockville to the extreme southern end
at Georgetown.
As the port of a more extensive wheat-producing area, Alex-
andria had an advantage over Georgetown, while the superiority
of Baltimore as a shipping port early gave it the lead in the
struggle for the trade of the interior country, in spite of the
shorter land carriage to the Potomac towns. But with the
Potomac made navigable, the situation would be changed in
favor of the Potomac towns, and it was not until the closing
year of the eighteenth century and the opening years of the
nineteenth had passed that it was realized, not only that ade-
quate means could not be secured to do what was planned, but
that the improvement scheme itself was totally defective and
even impracticable.
In Alexandria was located the office of the Virginia Journal
and Alexandria Advertiser, a weekly started, as far as can be
ascertained from the few issues that have been preserved, at
the opening of the year 1784. In the same way the conclusion
is reached that with the year 1788 the paper was issued twice a
week.! It was the first newspaper published within the territory
included in the bounds of the District, six years before George-
town had a newspaper, and ten years after Baltimore’s first
newspaper. It may be presumed its career ended in less than
five years, as in the summer of 1789 another paper with practi-
cally the same name appeared, the Virginia Gazette and Alex-
andria Advertiser.
The publication of a weekly newspaper, the first attempt of
1 Vol. 4, No. 187, Aug. 30, 1787, has the colophon, ‘‘George Richards
and Co. at their printing office on Fairfax St.” This issue, as well as
those for March 28 and May 29, 1788, are in the Library of Congress.
94 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
thesort in Georgetown, was begun about the middle of February,
1789, before the question of a permanent seat had been taken
up by the first congress. It was the Times and Potowmack
Packet, Charles Fierer and Thomas N. Fosdick, printers. It
occupied the field over two years. The issue of July 6, 1791,
is the latest. that has been preserved.!
In March, 1790, a second newspaper, the Georgetown Weekly
Ledger, appeared, Day and Hancock, printers, who were later
on succeeded by Alexander Doyle. The latest number of this
paper known is of the date Oct. 5, 1793.”
It is probable, as the Ledger was published while the Packet
wasin existence, thus attempting to gain a share of the patronage
of a community hardly large enough, it might be surmised, to
afford support for one newspaper, that it was the first in the long
list of publications that were started in the District, primarily
because it was the seat of government. On this supposition
the proprietor showed great confidence in his ability to forecast
the action of congress, as he started his venture some three
months prior to the residence bill becoming a law.’
1J—n the issue of this paper of Nov. 25, 1789, is the announcement
“Just Published. Sold at this office wholesale and retail, Poor Robin
Almanack or the Maryland Ephemeris. For the year of our Lord,
1790.”
This reads as if the book was printed by the Georgetown printers,
and, if that was the case, it is the earliest product of the District press of
which there is any record. There is, however, no known copy of the
almanac in existence, so that its exact imprint cannot be determined.
2 New Jersey Archives. 1st Series, Vol. XI, edited by William Nel-
son. Some Account of American Newspapers. Information rela-
tive to other early newspapers in Maryland was derived from this
excellent source.
3 From the office of the Ledger came the earliest District imprint
known. It is a pamphlet entitled ‘‘Two Sermons on the certain and
final perseverance of the Saints,’’ by Stephen Bloomer Balch, A. M.,
Pastor of the Presbyterian congregation, Georgetown.
Georgetown printed for the author by M. Day and W. Hancock,
1791.
It is probable that the second District imprint as well as the third
came from the same press. The titles are as follows : —
“The Potomak Almanac or the Washington Ephemeris for the
year of our Lord, 1793.”’ Georgetown (Potomak). Printed and sold
by James Doyle [1792].
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 95
There are no known District imprints from the year
1792 until the year 1800.1. While a weekly paper served
the needs of the citizens of Georgetown, the publishers of
the Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, John Smith
and Ellis Price, printers, which appeared Nov. 21, 1792, felt
justified in providing two issues a week. It is probable the
weekly appearance of the Virginia Gazette had ceased by that
time.
Newspapers were not as numerous in Virginia and Maryland
as they were in the middle and eastern states. The earliest
newspaper published in Maryland was the Maryland Gazette
that appeared in 1727 at Annapolis, William Parks, publisher.
The latter was the public printer both for Maryland and Vir-
ginia, and had a press at Annapolis and also at Williamsburg.
Some six years later he gave up his office at Annapolis and
began the publication at Williamsburg of the Virginia Gazette,
the first newspaper of that colony.
The famous press of Jonas Green was set up in Annapolis
in the year 1745, and his paper bearing the name Maryland
Gazette began its long career. ‘The name of William Rind in the
year 1765 appeared in connection with Jonas Green as publisher,
and about the year 1766 Rind began the publication of the
Virginia Gazette at Williamsburg as a rival to the existing news-
paper of the same name that was thought to incline in its
sympathies towards the side of England in the struggle then
going on over the stamp tax. On the death of Mr. Rind the
publication of the paper was continued by his widow and then
by their sons William and John Rind.
As early as the year 1773 a newspaper was published in Balti-
more, called the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser,
William Goddard, publisher. In the year 1793 it was issued
“Pious Guide to prayer and devotion, containing various practices
ealeulated to answer the various demands of the different devout
members of the Roman Catholic Church.”’ George-Town (Potowmack).
Printed by James Doyle, 1792.
1An account of the issues of the District of Columbia press
in 1800-1802 is given by A. P. C. Griffin. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol.
IV.
96 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
three times a week, and two years later it was consolidated
with the Baltimore Daily Advertiser, and the publication con-
tinued to 1797. Dunlop’s Maryland Gazette or the Baltimore
General Advertiser, John Dunlop, printer, a weekly paper, was
started in 1775 and discontinued in 1779. The name was
revived in the year 1783 in a weekly published by John Hays,
which became a semiweekly three years later, and its publica-
tion continued as late as the year 1791.
The Maryland Chronicle, Matthias Bartgis, printer, was issued
weekly at Frederick, Md., as early as 1786 and had an exist-
ence of some thirty-five years. A Maryland Gazette, John
Winter, printer, began its career also in Frederick in the year
1790. The town of Elizabeth Town or Hagerstown had in the
year 1794, 2000 inhabitants, and four years earlier there was
begun the publication of the Washington Spy, Stewart Herbert,
printer, which continued until 1797.
The development of the back country, as the region about
Frederick and Hagerstown was called in the earlier days, is
emphasized by the record of the newspapers, and also there may
be traced in the same record, at least to some extent, the rise in
commercial importance of Baltimore, Alexandria and George-
town.
When a system for the collection of the duties on imports
and exports was provided by the act of July 31, 1789, George-
town was made a port of entry for all the region on the east side
of the Potomac from Pamumkey Creek to the head of navigable
waters, while Alexandria was the port on the west side of the
river. James McCubbin Lingan was appointed collector of
the port of Georgetown on the first of October, 1790. At that
time William B. Magruder was in charge of the post-office,
which had been established since 1776.1
1The total value of the exports of the two places for the years
named are given as follows :—
1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796
Georgetown, $314,864 $348,539 $364,537 $128,924 $196,790 $159,868
Alexandria, 381,242 535,592 812,889 948,460 1,100,000
The figures are taken from Travels through the United States in
the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797, by the Duke de La Rochefoucault Lian-
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 97
Georgetown was described by Thomas Johnson of Frederick,
Md., in a letter to Washington, Nov. 10, 1791, as “the best
market for tobacco in the state, perhaps in America.” !
A contemporary account of the commercial condition of the
locality is found in a letter of Benjamin Stoddert, a merchant
of Georgetown and a large owner of property in that place and
in Washington, written to John Templeman, also a resident of
Georgetown and associated with Mr. Stoddert in some of his
land enterprises. The letter is undated, but the context shows
that it was written in the latter portion of the year 1804. It
was addressed to Mr. Templeman, then at Boston, and from
statements made in it, the inference may be drawn that one
object in writing was to supply Mr. Templeman with material
for presenting to prospective investors the advantages of George-
town and its immediate locality and the bright promise of its
future growth and prosperity, and consequently the enhance-
ment in property values.
Mr. Stoddert was born in Bladensburg, Md., and after
serving in the war of the revolution and reaching the rank of
major retired to take a civil appointment in connection with
the war office. He was the first secretary of the navy, serving
from 1798 until 1802. He was the second president of the
first bank started in the District of Columbia, the Bank of
Columbia in Georgetown, and became deeply interested in
property in the new city where he was a landowner before the
site of the District was chosen.
In common with practically ail the early speculators in Wash-
ington city property, he became heavily involved, and the
crisis in his affairs had apparently been reached about the time
of the date of this letter, for towards the end he informs Mr.
court, London, 1799, Vol. II, pp. 332 and 339. The author attributes
the decrease in the Georgetown exports to the falling off in the cultiva-
tion of tobacco and also to the diversion of the capital of the merchants
to speculation in the lots of the federal city. In 1790 the exports of
Baltimore were valued at over ten millions of dollars.
1The Maryland legislature by an act of Dec. 21, 1790, in view of
the increase in the tobacco trade at Georgetown, authorized the
establishment of a third inspection house. The fees at $1 per hogs-
head, it was estimated, would amount to $10,000 a year.
VOL. I—H
98 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
Templeman that his “peace of mind’’ depends on the success
of his efforts. Because of this strong personal interest, he may
not be regarded as an unprejudiced witness, but, making due
allowance for such a natural bias, his account of the commercial
situation of the locality is valuable and by far the most compre-
hensive from any contemporary pen.
The letter as it is preserved in the manuscript division of
the library of congress is not complete and begins abruptly,
and in part is as follows : —
“Brought up a merchant, the revolutionary war commenced
just as my apprenticeship ended and I entered into the army —
in two or three years was made secretary to the board of war,
but, before the end of the war, returned to Maryland to marry,
looking to commerce as the means by which I was to support a
family, and determined to enter into commerce as soon as the
war ended, and not before. After marrying, I had two years to
consider where to fix myself in commerce, all places being alike
to me, having no particular interest in any.
“Baltimore was then a flourishing place almost beyond calcu-
lation, and Alexandria was a place of very considerable com-
merce. I was urged by my friends to fix myself in each of these
places, but I had reasoned myself into a decided preference for
Georgetown, then (at the end of 1783) entirely destitute of
every appearance of being commercial. There was but one
trifling retail shop in it, and it had not a man who ventured
five pounds on any foreign voyage. Still, I said that no place
in this quarter of the union, not Baltimore itself, was convenient
to so great a proportion of the products of the country as George-
town, and in a state of peace I knew that the commerce of
such a place must depend in a great degree on the products of
the country, it was from situation entitled to receive, and that
if this position was correct, which I could not doubt, that the
trade of Baltimore and of Alexandria would decline and that
of Georgetown would increase beyond the conception of
common minds.
“T was not deceived in these calculations. The merchants
of Baltimore experienced a diminution of their trade, for which
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 99
they were unable to account. Alexandria, not having enjoyed
so much, — more than its natural resources entitled it to, — suf-
fered less in the peace, though its trade did decline, while that of
Georgetown, which only had a commencement in 1784, flour-
ished more than even the most sanguine would have imagined.
“The exports of Georgetown, in two years after the peace
[with England in 1783], exceeded those of Alexandria, and in six
years were more than double — and in six years they amounted
to more than half those of Baltimore. Had the peace continued
six years more, the exports of Georgetown would have exceeded
those of Baltimore, because in peace our exports consist prin-
cipally of our own produce, and Georgetown is really more
convenient than Baltimore to the greatest quantity of grain,
flour, and tobacco made in Maryland and Virginia.
“The European war put an end to the trade of Georgetown,
injured that of Alexandria, and raised that of Baltimore beyond
the clouds. There was nothing in all this, not easily foreseen.
Baltimore had capital and great number of merchants; Alexan-
dria, an old place compared to Georgetown, had much more com-
mercial capital, and a greater number of merchants. The
effect of a war, which produced an unnatural state of trade,
is to destroy places, but beginning and to benefit those
already established and possessing merchants, capital and
ships.
“ |... Then further all the trade now carried on by
Baltimore consists entirely of what is properly called the
carrying trade, importing into Baltimore the articles from one
foreign country to export them to another. What better
proof can be given of this than a comparison of the amount
of articles of our own growth with the articles of foreign growth
shipped from Baltimore in each year since the prevalence of the
European war.
« |. During the revolutionary war Baltimore exported
the whole tobacco of Maryland, during the peace that succeeded
Baltimore did not export one fourth of the tobacco of Maryland.
In three years after the war ended, Georgetown exported one
third of the Maryland tobacco and in six years much more
100 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
.
than one half. During the present war Baltimore has again
engrossed the exportation of by far the greater part of the to-
bacco of Maryland. So of flour.
“ Baltimore is situated to receive a greater proportion of the
flour of Maryland than of tobacco, perhaps Baltimore is equally
convenient as Georgetown to one half of the flour of Maryland,
and Georgetown is so situated to receive from Virginia in pref-
erence to other places quantities of flour, equal to the whole
quantity made in Maryland, so that in truth Georgetown is
selected to be a much greater exporter of flour as well as of
tobacco than Baltimore.
sy all these observations would apply with nearly
equal force to Alexandria was Georgetown out of the way and
there was no ship channel above Alexandria. As things are,
Alexandria will, as it did before, decline as Georgetown rises.”
Benjamin Stoddert was not the only man that the com-
mercial prospects of Georgetown drew to that place after the
close of the war with England !!
The principal merchant of the place was Robert Peter, who
came from Scotland, where he was born in the year 1726,
and opened a store in Georgetown about the year 1752. The
English firm of John Glassford & Co., which Mr. Peter repre-
sented, rented a storehouse on Water Street, west of Wisconsin
Avenue. Mr. Peter was appointed in 1757 to fill a vacancy in
the board of commissioners in charge of the sale of lots of the
town, and held that position nearly up to the time when the city
was incorporated. He was then chosen mayor.
Uriah Forrest of St. Mary’s County, Md., who rendered dis-
tinguished service in the war, at the close of that contest went
to London, where he established the firm of Forrest, Stoddert
and Murdock, and engaged extensively in the trade of the
Potomac. He was successful in business, and with the money
he had made, he returned to this country after the location of
1Tt is interesting to note that his residence at the southwest corner
of 34th and Prospect streets is still standing, although changed in its
exterior form. It is one of the largest private houses of this locality,
built in the period of spacious homes.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 101
the federal capital had been determined, and taking up his
residence in Georgetown engaged in business.
Like many of his associates in Georgetown, he became in-
terested in property in the new city and shared the fate of a
number of such adventurers in meeting heavy losses. He
became the clerk of the circuit court of the District when it
was established in 1801. His country seat of Rosedale at the
northeast corner of Newark and 36th streets is still in the posses-
sion of his descendants. A portion of it became the property
of Grover Cleveland while he was President, and he lived here
during the summer season.
Another officer who rendered valued service during the
war was Charles Beatty of Frederick County. He also removed
to Georgetown and engaged in business.
Thomas Corcoran from Ireland in the year 1788 passed
through Georgetown on his way to Richmond, where he in-
tended to engage in business. But attracted by the oppor-
tunities offered in Georgetown he decided to remain there.
In later years he was honored by his fellow-citizens in being
elected to the office of mayor. He was the father of W. W.
Corcoran, prominent for so many years as a citizen of Washing-
ton.
The son of George Beall, the owner of a portion of the original
part of Georgetown, who bore his father’s name, married a mem-
ber of the Magruder family. His son Thomas Brooke Beall was
president of the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank. He made one
of the additions of land to Georgetown. George Beall’s resi-
dence, which he built in 1784, was located on the heights of
Georgetown and was called Dumbarton. He married Ann
Orme, the latter family being from England, and it is probably
a member of the same family whose survey east of Rock Creek
was used by General Washington while he was engaged in
studying the locality in order to determine the site of the new
city.
John Laird, who came from Scotland and was engaged in
business in Bladensburg, removed to Georgetown in the year
1Qld Georgetown. Taggart, p. 194.
102 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
1800. His eldest daughter married James Dunlop, judge of
the circuit court of the District. The father of the latter came
from Glasgow.!
The high bluff on the river side of the town along which M
Street now passes was in the early days a favorite location for the
residences of the well-to-do, where they built spacious houses
with the grounds extending down to the river and commanding
a fine view of that interesting waterway. Here were to be found
the homes of Benjamin Stoddert, General John Mason and in the
opening years of the nineteenth century of Francis Scott Key,
the author of the Star Spangled Banner. The latter house, on
the south side of M Street, just east of the entrance to the
aqueduct bridge, was torn down in the year 1912.
The character of this locality at an early date is shown by
an advertisement that appeared in The Times and Patowmack
Packet, April 23, 1789, in which Valentine Reintzel, Jr., a member
of the common council of the town in 1791, offered for sale or
rent the two-story brick house where he then lived, which he
described as being “in the most pleasant part of the town
near the market house.’”’ The latter building stood on the site
occupied by the structure now in use as a market on the south
side of M Street, just west of Wisconsin Avenue.
The year Georgetown became an incorporated town is the
date of the organization of Lodge No. 9 of Masons. In the
spring of 1789 the Grand Lodge of Maryland granted a petition
from a number of Masons in Georgetown asking for authority to
convene as a regular lodge. This petition was granted.
There is a tradition that a lodge existed in the town at an
early period and worked under a charter granted by the Grand
Lodge of Scotland, as it was a common practice prior to the
revolution for lodges of Masons to organize in this country
under authority from the Grand Lodge of Scotland or that of
England. Owing to the large number of residents in George-
1 Reminiscences of Georgetown, D.C. Rev. T. B. Balch, Wash-
ington, 1859.
* Mr. Key succeeded to the law business of his uncle, Philip Barton
Key. Intelligencer, Dec. 23, 1805.
RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 103
town from Scotland, it is conjectured that this early lodge, of
which the records have not been preserved, went back to
Scotland rather than to England for its charter.
The Georgetown Masons promptly availed themselves of the
charter of the Maryland Grand Lodge, as notices of meetings
of Lodge No. 9, Ancient York Masons, are found in the news-
papers as early as November of that year.?
The first observance of St. John’s Day in Georgetown of which
a record has been preserved is reported in the Times and Patow-
mack Packet of June 30, 1790. A procession to the church was
a feature of the day “where an excellent discourse was delivered
by Rev. Brother Balch, after which they proceeded to Mr. John
Suter’s, where they celebrated the day according to the ancient
form and custom.”
A lodge of Masons was formed in Alexandria in 1783 under the
authority of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. Five years
later a grand lodge was organized in Virginia and the Alexandria
organization came under its jurisdiction. General Washington
served as master of the lodge in 1788 and that event is preserved
in the change in its name to Alexandria Washington Lodge,
which it still bears.*
In the same issue of the Packet the announcement appears
that “the gentlemen who subscribed to celebrate the anniver-
sary of American Independence will be pleased to attend at
Mr. White’s tavern at four o’clock to-morrow afternoon to
choose managers to regulate the proceedings of the day.”
It is likely this was not the first 4th of July observance in
1 An inscription in a Bible, published in Edinburgh in 1754, owned
by Potomac Lodge, the successor of Lodge No. 9, is as follows:
“A present from M. Colin Campbell to St. Andrew’s Lodge, the
30th of January, 1773, Bladensburg.’’ This is all the record preserved
of the existence of the Bladensburg Lodge. History of Potomac
Lodge, Chronicles of Georgetown, Richard P. Jackson, Washington,
1878, p. 271.
2 Times and Patowmack Packet, Nov. 25, 1789. History of the
Grand Lodge and of Freemasonry in the District of Columbia, p. 14.
Kenton N. Harper, Washington, 1911.
* History of the Grand Lodge and of Freemasonry in the District
of Columbia, p. 11.
104 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the District, but it is the earliest of which any record has been
preserved. The usual form of celebration was a dinner, when
a long list of toasts was the feature.
In the issue of The Packet of July 21, 1790, it is stated “last
evening the Theatre of this town was opened by Mr. McGrath’s
Co. of comedians with the celebrated comedy The Miser, which
was acted with great applause before a crowded assembly. It
is hoped that this company, by far the best which ever visited
this town, will meet with encouragement.” Evidently this was
not the opening of the theatre in the sense of the starting of a
new enterprise, but merely the beginning of a new season.
When the first theatrical performance was given is not known.
The series of receptions and the popular ovation accorded
General Washington when he made the journey from Mount
Vernon to New York in April, 1789, where he went to take the
oath of office as the first President of the new republic, began at
Alexandria, where he was received “by a respectable corps of
gentlemen,”’ and where he was presented with an address from
the mayor, Dennis Ramsay, to which a response was made.
The Alexandria escort conducted the illustrious citizen to the
Virginia side of the ferry. Washington and his suite, which
included Charles Tompson, the secretary of the old congress,
was received on the Georgetown side with “the acclamations of
a large crowd of their grateful fellow citizens, who beheld their
Fabius in the evening of his days bid adieu to the peaceful
retreat of Mount Vernon in order to save his country once more
from confusion and anarchy.” From Georgetown he had the
escort of a “corps of gentlemen”? commanded by Colonel
William Deakins, Jr., as far as Spurrier’s Tavern, where they
were met by an escort from Baltimore.
1 Times and Patowmack Packet, April 23, 1789. Spurrier’s Tavern
was on the post road about midway between Washington and Balti-
more.
General Washington, spoken of as being ‘‘in the evening of his
days,”’ was then fifty-seven years old.
CHAPTER VI
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT
Unver date of July 12,1790, President Washington makes the
following entry in his diary: “and about noon had two bills pre-
sented to me by the joint committee of Congress. The one, an
act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the
Government of the United States.” !
The above is the first recorded utterance of General Washing-
ton in regard to the federal seat. While during the previous
seven years he had doubtless not been unconcerned in regard to
the fate of a measure of such importance, yet there is no evi-
dence to show that he had participated in the contest that had
been waged with such vigor. It may be inferred that he used
his influence, and presumably in favor of the Potomac site,
both because of his lifelong acquaintance with the locality
and on the broader ground because he firmly believed that the
Potomac River was to be one of the great ways of commerce and
intercourse between the east and the great expanse of the west-
ern country, with its wonderful possibilities and promise. But
he took no recorded part in the partisan and sectional struggle.
When it had ended, however, with the passage of the law of
July 16, 1790, he began the exercise of the large powers intrusted
to him, and from that time to the close of his administration he
was the most potent force in the great work of establishing the
capital city of the new republic. In addition to administrative
ability of a high order required to create a city of national pro-
portions that would be adapted for the needs of a nation then
young and feeble and few in numbers, but destined to become
one of the great powers of the earth, it was needed also that the
guiding mind should have patriotic purpose and a lofty faith.
1 Diary of George Washington, 1789-1791. Edited by Benson J.
Lossing. New York, 1860.
105
106 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
This former quality his countrymen had recognized, and of
the latter the city which he planned and fostered through the
early years of a discouraging beginning stands forth to-day as a
fine expression.
It was a city of no mean nation that Washington had in
mind from the very outset, and this idea finds expression when
he was resisting the attempts of some of the landowners to
restrict the area to be selected. Under date of May 7, 1791,
he writes to the commissioners of the city “that Philadelphia
stood upon an area of three by two miles, and if the metropolis
of one state occupied so much ground what ought that of the
United States to oceupy?’”’!
In carrying out an undertaking that was new in the history of
nations — the creation of a centre for the home of a government,
the only exception being that of St. Petersburg, which was the
offspring of the will of the ruler of an autocracy — Washington
had to encounter obstacles due to personal and local greed,
the jealousy and distrust of strong sectional feeling and the
ambition of other centres and localities where it was desired
that the advantages of proximity to the national city be enjoyed.
As has been pointed out, the divergent, discordant interests had
been brought near enough by a compromise to make possible
the choice of the Potomac site. But they were by no means
reconciled to the result, and many years were to elapse before
the blighting influence upon the capital city was effaced of un-
certainty as to whether after all the District of Columbia was
to retain the seat of government. The state of feeling in New
York City, then the largest in point of population and the
principal business centre of the new republic, was no doubt
1 Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI. L.of C. The area decided
upon by Washington was more than four and one half miles by three
and one half miles. Also a letter to L’Enfant of April 4, 1791, advis-
ing a liberal area of land for the city plan he was then making, ‘Al-
though it may not be immediately wanting,”’ he adds, ‘‘it will, never-
theless, increase the revenue and of course be beneficial not only to the
public but to the individuals also, hereafter inasmuch as the plan will
be enlarged and thereby freed from those blotches which otherwise
might result from not comprehending all the lands that appear well
adapted to the general design.”
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 107
voiced by the editor of the New York Daily Gazette, who in
concluding in the issue of Aug. ‘11, 1790, a sketch of the pro-
ceedings of the last session of congress in that city said, “We
wish we could with equal propriety vindicate the measure of
removal without a cause and in so abrupt a manner.”
Jefferson wrote in November, 1790, that in conversations
he had had with men interested in the Potomac site “they were
properly impressed with the idea that if the present measure
of securing the federal seat on the Patowmack should be lost,
it could never more be regained, that it would be dangerous
to rely on any aids from congress or the assemblies of Virginia
or Maryland and that measures should be adopted to carry the
residence bill into execution without recourse to those bodies.” !
Congress bade farewell to New York on Aug. 12, 1790, when
it adjourned to meet in Philadelphia the following December
for the third session of the first congress. Four days after
adjournment, President Washington left New York on a tour
through Rhode Island and the eastern states and did not reach
Mount Vernon until about the 11th day of September. During
this period there is no record that he took any steps towards
executing the law authorizing him to locate the federal town
somewhere on the east side of the Potomac between the Eastern
Branch and the Conococheagie, a stretch of some sixty-seven
miles as the bird flies.
While the president was silent there were not lacking voices
showing that, at least in the vicinity of the locality named, the
subject was not lost sight of in the throng of absorbing interests
which at that period were engrossing the attention of a people
that were eagerly engaged in subduing a new country to the
uses of civilized man. Under the heading of “General Re-
marks” the author of a communication in the Maryland Journal
and Baltimore Advertiser of Sept. 24, 1790, discussing the debate
in congress on the residence bill, observed that while Baltimore
is the proper place for the temporary seat, it would not have been
suitable for the permanent seat, for the reason that it is too
1 Mr. Jefferson’s notes as to the proceedings to be had under the resi-
dence act. Jefferson papers. Also State Department, D.C., Papers.
108 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
remote from the western settlements, and besides would be too
much exposed to an enemy from the water.
“By moving farther up the Potomac,” he continues, “that
thoroughfare to the western region, the situation will be more
healthy, it will add to the cultivation of an extensive, fertile
and populous country, and it will be more accommodated to our
fellow-citizens west of the mountains and more so to almost
one half of Pennsylvania, than if the seat of government was
at Philadelphia. ... Mr. Burke [a member of the house from
South Carolina] is requested to attend to a sketch of the country
which he designated a wilderness.
“Within four or five miles of Conegocheague is Hagers-
Town, with twelve or eighteen stores and some manufactures :
within ten miles down the river is Shepherds-Town [Va.] and
Sharpsburg [Md.] with as many stores: within twelve miles
farther southwest is Martinsburg with ten stores in it: within
twenty-four miles northeast is Chambers-Town, the capital of
Franklin County: within thirty-four miles southwest is Win-
chester, in which is sold about 80,000 pounds sterling worth
of goods annually.
“Within fourteen miles of Conegocheague there are up-
wards of thirty pair of bur mill stones employed in manufactur-
ing wheat: within the same distance there are four furnaces
and three forges for making iron.”’?
Just four months after the residence bill became a law, Presi-
dent Washington publicly entered upon its execution, and as a
preliminary step he went over the territory wherein he was
authorized to make a selection of a suitable site. On the 15th
of October, 1790, he came to Georgetown from Mount Vernon,
and in the language of the only chronicler of that event, the
editor of the Times and Patowmack Packet in the issue of Oct.
20, “with the principal citizens of this town and neighborhood
[on Saturday, Oct. 16th] set out to view the country adjacent
1 Washington County, of which Hagerstown was the county seat,
was described in Jedediah Morse’s American Gazetteer of 1790 as the
garden of Maryland, and includes, ‘‘the rich, fertile and well-cultivated
valley of Conegocheague.”’ — The accepted spelling is Conococheague.
* THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 109
to the river Patowmack in order to fix on a proper selection
for the Grand Columbian Federal City.”
The president spent the day in travelling over what was to
be the site of the new city, and in the evening returned to
Georgetown. “On Sunday morning early,” continues the
chronicler, “he set out for the Great Falls and the Conocho-
cheague. We are informed that since the arrival of the presi-
dent in our parts, bets respecting the selection of Georgetown
run high in favor of Georgetown. By the return of the presi-
dent, we hope to have it in our power to lay a circumstantial
account of this important matter before the public.”
This latter hope was not realized, for no announcement was
made of Washington’s decision until the proclamation was is-
sued the following January.
While in Georgetown, or perhaps just before he reached that
place, Washington received an offer in writing, dated Oct. 13,
1790, from a number of property holders to sell on such terms
as the president may determine to be reasonable, any of the
lands owned by them in the vicinity of Georgetown. Those
joining in this offer were Robert Peter, Thomas Beall of George,
Benjamin Stoddert, Uriah Forrest, Will Deakins, Jr., John Stod-
dard, J. M. Lingan, George Beall and Anthony Holmead. In
the rather elaborate statement setting forth the advantages of
the vicinity of Georgetown, which accompanied this offer, it
is pointed out “that if the Federal City should be erected on
navigation, no place in the small distance from the mouth
of the Eastern Branch to the highest tide-water, offers so many
advantages . . . and it is conceived that the hilliness of the coun-
try, far from being an objection, will be thought a desirable cir-
cumstance, as it will at once contribute to the beauty, health
and security of a city intended for the seat of Empire. For a
place merely commercial, where men willingly sacrifice health
to gain, a continued flat might perhaps be preferred.”’ !
1 Potomac Flats Case, Record, Vol. 7, p. 2159. From War Depart-
ment manuscripts. As an early expression of the view that the new
city was to be regarded not merely from a utilitarian or commercial
standpoint the above is interesting.
110 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
It was the vicinity of Georgetown, the site eventually selected,
that these property owners, who were also for the most part
residents of that place, proposed for the location of the new
city, and not Georgetown itself. They pointed out the ad-
vantage in the case it became necessary to sell any part of the
land to provide the money for the public buildings, of proximity
to “a town already in possession of no very inconsiderable and
increasing trade.” The jealousy of the Eastern Branch locality,
which influenced later on other property holders in the western
portion of the new city, was not entertained by the petitioners,
for they pointed out that as Georgetown was not a good winter
harbor, the Eastern Branch afforded a safe anchorage, and, as was
added, ‘“‘ whenever the vessels could sail from the Eastern Branch
they could load at Georgetown.”
There is no further contemporary record of the president’s
journey after he left Georgetown until his arrival in Hagers-
town. How he travelled and the route followed can only be
conjectured. It may be inferred that it was at this time that
he viewed the lands about the Monocacy, forty miles from
Georgetown.!. When the president reached Elizabeth (Hagers)
Town, he had travelled a distance of some seventy miles.
The distance between the two streams of water marking the
designated limits of the territory of selection as the crow flies
is about sixty-seven miles. By the usual highway route of
to-day via Rockville, Frederick and Hagerstown, the distance
is seventy-eight miles. It may be inferred that as there was
no mention of Washington’s visiting Frederick at this time,
although it is likely such an event would have been chronicled,
as the Maryland Gazette and Frederick Weekly Advertiser had
begun its career, his route followed the river. What was known
as the Lower or River Road is believed to have been older
than the Frederick or Upper Road, as the section of the Rock-
ville Road within the District was then known, and which ran
some distance to the east of the River Road. As the law
specified that the ten-mile square be located “on the River
‘Francis Deakins to Washington, Nov. 12, 1790. State Depart-
ment, D.C., Papers.
* THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT
o Hagerstown
Lo
ez
&
e
sia oF rederick Town
Martinsburg o
Shepherdstown ©
oO Winchester Baltimore 9
Leesburg o
Annapolis,
rahe, b
WASHINGS Bladensburg
Alexandria Oj E O\WMarlborg
Riscathway
Mt.Vernon
Dumeries,3
Brent 3 5P t:Tobace OA
Williams Engraving Co., New York
Tuer VICINITY OF WASHINGTON.
111
112 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Potomac” somewhere between the two streams named, a
visit of observation of the region necessarily included that in
the immediate vicinity of the river. He was received three
miles from Hagerstown by the principal men of the place
with an escort of a company of light horse. At the out-
skirts of the town a company of militia joined the escort.
With the ringing of bells and “the welcome applause of the
gratified inhabitants, the illustrious stranger,” as the news-
paper of the town, the Washington Spy, of Oct. 21 termed him,
“was conducted through the main street” to Mr. Beltzhoover’s
tavern. “In the evening,” the account continues, “the town
was illuminated, bonfires appeared in all quarters and every
demonstration of joy was exhibited on the happy occasion.”
A supper was served at the tavern, followed by the offering
of toasts. Among these was one by the president, “The River
Patowmac, May the residence law be perpetuated and Patowmac
view the Federal City.”
This toast is significant as being the first of a number of
recorded utterances of Washington of like import, especially
during the first few years of city building. Washington seemed
to be more concerned about the adverse, almost hostile, senti-
ment against the Potomac site than about all the other difficul-
ties, financial and otherwise, which hung about the heels of the
enterprise or at times appeared fairly to block the way.
At seven o’clock the next morning (October 21) the presi-
dent resumed his journey after receiving an address from the
citizens in which the wish was expressed to “have the honor to be
1In June of the following year, Washington stopped at George-
town on his way from Mount Vernon to Philadelphia. He states in
his diary under date of June 30, 1791, that being ‘‘desirous of seeing
the nature of the country north of Georgetown and along the Upper
Road, J resolved to pass through Frederick town in Maryland.” Toner’s
Copy, Vol. 35. It is quite evident if he had taken ‘‘the Upper Road’’
in the fall of 1790, he would not have been desirous a few months
later to make himself familiar with the country through which it
passed. Washington, in his record of this trip over the Frederick road,
states he breakfasted ‘‘at a small village called Williamsburg in which
stands the court house of Montgomery County, fourteen miles from
Georgetown,” thus preserving the first name of Rockville.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 113
included within your more especial command and jurisdiction —
within the grand centre of virtues.’’ The president in his
reply made no reference to the purpose of his journey, nor gave
any indication of conclusions he may have reached as to the
precise locality of the territory he was to select.
“He set out,” the same account records, “for Williams-Port
in order to take passage down that noble river (the American
Thames) which will be proud to waft him home.” !
When Washington reached Williamsport, seven miles to the
southwest of Hagerstown, he had come to the northern limit
of the area of choice, for that town is located on the Potomac
where the Conococheague flows into it, and he had therefore
traversed the entire region specified in the residence law. It
is evident that his coming aroused the people of Washington
County, Md., to the possibilities of the situation, for a week
later a petition signed by the citizens and addressed to the
Maryland assembly was prepared, representing “that the law of
Congress respecting a district for the permanent residence pre-
sents us with an occasion to hope that the said district may
be located in this county, and as we are willing to make every
contribution towards the necessary accommodation of Congress,
that can reasonably be expected or that our circumstances can
afford, we pray that the general assembly be pleased to pass an
act, agreeably to the aforesaid law of Congress and the constitu-
tion of the United States to appropriate a district of ten mile
square within this county wherein it may please the President
to make the location.” *
The petitioners ignored the fact there was then a law on the
statute books of Maryland, passed Dec. 23, 1788, which agreed
to do this very thing any where within the state. But, on the
other hand, Maryland had not as yet enacted the necessary
1 Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, Oct. 29,1790. From
the Washington Spy, Elizabeth-Town, Oct. 21. The same account
appeared in the Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia, Nov. 3,
1790, but in addition there is appended the address and the president’s
reply.
The same, Nov. 12, 1790, date line of article, Elizabeth-Town,
Maryland, Oct. 28.
VOL. I—I
114 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
coéperative legislation stipulated in the cession law of Virginia
by which it was to make an appropriation of two thirds of the
amount to be paid by Virginia towards the expense of defraying
the cost of the public buildings. In fact, such a law was not
passed until the following month.
A lively interest was displayed by the Virginians on the oppo-
site side of the river. A news paragraph under the date line
Shepherds-Town [Virginia], Nov. 5, published in the Gazette
of the United States, Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1790, states : —
“The late visit of our illustrious president encourages a hope
that the permanent seat of the federal government will be fixed
opposite to this town on the Maryland shore and one half of
the ten mile square will be located in Virginia.
“This event will, however, depend much on donations from
the inhabitants to defray the expenses of the federal buildings,
especially as the president has informed us large offers have been
made at other places on the Potomac.
“When we take into view the amazing advantages held up
to the owners of land in this valley, the very sudden and un-
expected increase in its value, we flatter ourselves that generous
subscriptions will be offered, especially as only a small part will
be shortly wanted. Our friends in Maryland are making
every possible exertion to effect this important purpose, and
as the inhabitants in the Virginia part of the valley will be
equally benefited, they request our cordial concurrence and aid.
“Subscriptions are taken in Shepherd’s-Town by Colonel
John Morrow, John Keafley, Esq., Captain Charles Morrow, and
Abraham Shepherd, Esq. In Martinsburg by Mr. Joseph
Riddel. In Charlestown by Mr. William Cooke and Mr. John
Henderson. On Shenandoah River by Mr. Humphrey Keys.
In Bulskin settlement by Mr. John Marks.
“Very liberal subscriptions have, within a few days past, been
obtained in this town and its vicinity, to be appropriated to-
wards erecting the federal buildings, provided the seat of govern-
ment be located so as to include Shepherd’s-Town within the
district.”
The president escaped observation on the return trip; at least
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT Lib
no record of it has been preserved. What he was doing about
the residence bill might be supposed was the prevailing topic,
especially in the Potomac region, and such a state of affairs is
pictured by the following gossipy paragraph that appeared
under the date line Georgetown, Nov. 10, in the Maryland
Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of Nov. 16,1790, and apparently
copied in the fashion of that day from one of the two George-
town newspapers, only very incomplete files of which have been
preserved.
“We hear that the president of the United States has ordered
three plats of different parts on the Potomac to be laid out.
Nothing certain respecting the fixed seat of government has as
yet transpired.”
The locations mapped out were in the vicinity of the Conoco-
cheague, at the mouth of the Monocacy, about forty miles from
Georgetown and the vicinity of Georgetown.!
Washington arrived at Mount Vernon from his up-river trip
the latter part of October, and a month later went to Phila-
delphia, where congress met early in December. During the
recess of the summer, the effects of the government had
been removed from New York to Philadelphia.2 The furniture
of the house occupied by the president had been taken
by boat under the direction of Tobias Lear, the president’s
private secretary, and set up in the house on Market Street,
near 6th Street, recently vacated by the owner Robert Morris.
1 William Deakins to Washington, Georgetown, Nov. 3, 1790, stating
that a surveyor was employed to lay down situations there: Francis
Deakins to Washington, Monocacy, Noy. 12, 1790, enclosing a draft
which he had prepared ‘‘of the lands you viewed about this place’”’
with the offers of land for the public buildings. Their straitened cir-
cumstances, he explains, accounts for their offers not being more
liberal. Also letter dated Baltimore, Noy. 8, 1790, O. N. Williams to
Francis Deakins, ‘‘I understand that you intend to furnish the Presi-
dent with plats of land adjacent to the Conococheague.’’ State
Department, D.C., Papers.
2 By a law passed in March, 1791, the clerks employed in the
several offices were allowed ‘‘in addition to their respective salaries,
their reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the removal,”
and at that time a temporary addition was made to the salaries of
several of the officials with the view of repaying such expenses.
116 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Under date of Nov. 4, Mr. Lear informs Washington that he
has just completed the removal. He states the corporation
of Philadelphia is to advance the money for the additions and
alterations made, which is to be refunded to the state out of
the rent as it is paid by the president to the owner Mr. Morris.!
The house was leased for two years, and Mr. Lear adds, “at
the end of which a new house is to be ready for the accommoda-
tion of the president of the United States.”
This is the first reference to the house erected by the state of
Pennsylvania for the president, and which Washington refused
to occupy, and in this particular his example was followed by
his successor Mr. Adams.
Washington looked upon this enterprise with much apparent
uneasiness and used it as an argument with the commissioners
and others, not only of the importance of expedition in preparing
a new national centre, but also of harmony in the work.
Perhaps it was the erection of this residence that inspired
the utterances of the writer of a communication published in
the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, Nov. 23, 1790,
under the heading “General Remarks.”
“Mr. Burke and Mr. Smith [members of the house from
South Carolina] pretend to be certain,” he observes, referring
to the debate in congress on the residence bill, “that the
flourishing state of Pennsylvania will have acquired so much
wealth and influence during ten years residence of Congress
in Philadelphia that the seat of government will never be moved
from that city.”
The writer then refers to the incident of the Paxton Boys
some thirty years before, when the county and city of Phila-
delphia gave laws to the province. The frontier inhabitants,
he states, conceived that an act passed by the assembly affected
their interests, and three hundred of them, under the name of
Paxton Boys, seized their rifles, mounted their horses and set off
for Philadelphia. But they were met by a deputation of citi-
zens which asked them to send delegates, instead of coming
1 Rent 500 pounds, or about $1400 per year. Lear to Washington,
Sept. 21, 1790. Letters to Washington, Vol. 76.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 117
to the city in a body, which was done, and their grievances were
adjusted.
In the next ten years, the writer pointed out, owing to the in-
crease in the population in the western country, if indirect means
were used to repeal the residence bill, 300,000 instead of 300
Paxton Boys would march in quest of redress.
“But the gentlemen from South Carolina say that Pennsyl-
vania will threaten a separation rather than part with congress,
and that the states will indulge them rather that part with them.
This is really small talk about matters of the greatest magnitude.
. . . At the end of ten years, the most prejudiced person will see
and be convinced that the Patowmac is the proper place for
the seat of government. For the space of one century after
that period, it is possible, it may be alternately on the Patow-
mac and the Belle Riviere after the manner of Babylon and
Sufa in the time of Cyrus.”
Upon his arrival in Philadelphia, Washington found that Mr.
Jefferson, his secretary of state, no doubt in compliance with the
president’s request, had set down his views of the residence law
and the method of carrying it out. This paper shows the
acuteness of mind and the fertility of resources of the great
Virginian. While he points out that no authority is given in
the law to build a town, yet he is of the opinion that “the ex-
pression ‘such quantity of land as the President shall deem
proper for the United States’ is vague, it may therefore be
extended to the acceptance or purchase of land enough for the
town; and I have no doubt it is the wish and perhaps expecta-
tion in that case to be laid out in lots and streets. I should
propose these to be at right angles as in Philadelphia and that no
street be narrower than one hundred feet, with foot ways of
fifteen feet. Where a street is long and level, it might be one
hundred and twenty feet wide.”
The “disgusting monotony”’ produced in Philadelphia, due
to the obligation to build houses “at a given distance from the
street,’’ is objected to, while the regulation in Paris restricting
houses to a given height meets with his approval and, in fact,
became a part of the early building regulations.
118 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
On the important and, in this connection, vital question of
how to get the land without the expenditure of great sums of
money, Mr. Jefferson suggests various plans, and, as it turned
out, one of these was adopted.
On the supposition that a site below the Little Falls should
be decided upon, Mr. Jefferson suggests that the area of accept-
ance be to the Eastern Branch and then from the lower end
of Alexandria to the commencement on the Maryland side, with
the further suggestion of amendatory legislation authorizing
the president to include land on the south side of the Eastern
Branch. The prospects of the Eastern Branch as a trade centre
were evidently highly thought of by Jefferson, as he says: “In
locating the town, will it not be best to give it double the
extent on the Eastern Branch of what it has on the river?
The former will be for persons in commerce, the latter for those
connected with the government.”
Jefferson supposed that 1500 acres would be sufficient for
the city, while Washington included four times that area. In
his scheme each square would contain eight acres, and, as he
suggested two squares or sixteen acres for.the president’s house,
offices and gardens, and nine squares for the public walks, one
can find here, the germ of the president’s ground and the Mall
of to-day, the most lavish provision for pleasure grounds and
lawns that has ever been made in the plan of an American city,
but which surpasses the conception of Jefferson’s just as the
entire city plan of Washington goes far beyond in proportions
what Jefferson had in mind.! It may be inferred, as Jeffer-
son discussed the Georgetown location in such detail the
latter part of November, 1790, he probably felt pretty well
assured of the president’s choice. At any rate, he did not
express an opinion as to the use to be made of any other site.
1$tate Department, D.C., Papers, Nov. 29, 1790. In the same
collection is a letter from Jefferson to Washington, dated Sept. 1790,
enclosing a memorandum suggesting the method of acquiring and hold-
ing the lands by transfer of the title to trustees, which was subse-
quently followed. Instead of 88 acres, as proposed by Jefferson
for the president’s ground and the Mall, 339 acres were set aside for
such purposes.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 119
The particular attention given to the Georgetown site is
further indicated by a letter to Washington of Messrs. Deakins
and Stoddert, dated Dec. 9, 1790, in which they give the results
of inquiries made of Jacob Funk of Washington County, Md., the
original proprietor of Hamburg, as to the situation of the lots
in that town site. “We find,” they state, “there are 287
lots laid out upon 130 acres of land.... The whole of the lots
are in the hands of about 150 proprietors, principally Dutchmen
residing in Frederick and Washington counties and in Pennsyl-
vania who have hitherto held them in but little estimation, and
we have reason to believe that the far greater part of them
might now be purchased at a little more than the original cost,
which was 5 pounds [$13.30] each lot; though there can be no
doubt, that if the seat of government should be fixed so as to
comprehend these lots, a much higher value would be instantly
set upon them.” !
In the meanwhile the good people in the vicinity of Hagers-
town and Shepherdstown were hard at work adding to the
subscription list which was to bring the national capital to their
doors.”
More than a month passed, and then on the 24th of January,
1791, the decision was made known and the location of the fed-
eral district finally settled. On that date the president sent a
message to congress stating that “in mature consideration of
the advantages and disadvantages of the several positions
within the limits prescribed,’’ he had by proclamation of the
same date directed commissioners “to survey and limit a
part of the territory of the ten mile square on both sides of the
river Potomac so as to comprehend Georgetown in Maryland
and extend to the Eastern Branch.”” But he adds that he has
1 Potomac Flats Case. Record, Vol. 7, p. 2162.
2Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, Dec. 3, 1790. Date
line, Shepherdstown, Nov. 15. Such progress had been made that by
the 6th of December, 1790, it was announced that the fund raised in
Washington County, Md., for erecting the federal buildings had grown
to upwards of $20,000. See also Gazette of the United States, Dec.
25, 1790, for a similar news paragraph under date line of Shepherds-
Town, Dee. 6.
120 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
not given to the territory the whole extent of which it is sus-
ceptible in the direction of the river, because he looked upon it
as important that congress should have an opportunity of con-
sidering whether by an amendatory law it would “authorize the
location of the residue at the lower end of the present, so as
to comprehend the Eastern Branch itself and some of the
country on its lower side in Maryland and the town of Alexan-
dria in Virginia. If, however,” he continues, congress is “of
the opinion that the federal territory should be bounded by the
water edge of the Eastern Branch, the location of the residue
will be made at the upper end of what is now directed.” 4
Congress without debate incorporated in an amendatory law
of March 3, 1791, the suggestions made by the president of
extending the limits of the federal district south of the Eastern
Branch on the Maryland side, and also south on the Virginia
side as far as Hunting Creek just south of Alexandria.? The
conclusion reached by the president in exercising the au-
thority conferred on him by law appears to have met the
sanction of the public opinion of the day, for, as far as known,
there is no record of a dissenting voice. Even in congress,
where there was ample opportunity for the expression of
opinion, there was no discussion.
Two days previous to the issue of the first proclamation, the
president appointed Thomas Johnson and Daniel Carroll, of
Maryland, and Dr. David Stuart, of Virginia, commissioners,
who under his direction were to survey the District, to accept
and purchase land on the eastern side of the river and to pro-
1 Annals of Congress, Vol. 2, Jan. 24, 1791.
2 It is interesting to note that while in the first proclamation the
first of the four lines of experiment was to begin at Hunting Creek,
yet the land south of the Eastern Branch and south of a line to be run
southwest into Virginia from the upper cape of Eastern Branch was
expressly excluded. Then by the second proclamation, dated March
30th, when the amendatory legislation had been secured, all lands
included within the four ten-mile lines beginning at Hunting Creek
and at Jones Point on that creek and comprising the bounds of the
District as they exist to-day, except the Virginia portion, retroceded to
that state over sixty years ago, were declared to be the limits of the
federal district.
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 121
vide suitable buildings for the accommodations of congress,
the president and the executive departments.
In the selection of the men to be intrusted with this important
work, Washington’s choice fell upon three who, in the first
place, had been long and intimately associated with him.
Thomas Johnson of Frederick, Md., was perhaps the most dis-
tinguished public man of his day in Maryland, having received
many marks of confidence from the people of the state as well
as from President Washington. He was then in his sixtieth
year. His home was in Frederick, Md., fifty-two miles
from the scene of his proposed labors, and no doubt the state
of the roads had something to do with his more frequent
absences from the meetings of the board than was the case with
either of his colleagues. There was another interest, however,
that soon engaged his attention, for some six months after his
appointment as one of the commissioners he was honored by
receiving from the hands of Washington an appointment as
justice of the United States supreme court. He took his seat in
August, 1792, and after eighteen months’ service resigned in
February, 1794. In August of the same year he retired from
the board of city commissioners, and a year later received a
further mark of Washington’s esteem by being offered the posi-
tion of secretary of state just made vacant by the retire-
ment of Edmund Randolph, which he declined. Mr. Johnson,
in addition to his wide experience in public affairs and
his ability as an executive, had the further qualification as
commissioner of the new city of being familiar with the peo-
ple and the locality. According to tradition, his tempera-
ment was testy, some evidences of which are to be traced in the
letters he wrote to the commissioners after his retirement from
the board relative to his lots on Rock Creek, which he main-
tained, with much asperity, were not within the distinction of
water lots as applied to the Potomac River front.
Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek was in his sixty-first year.
He was living with his mother at the homestead near what is
1 History of the Supreme Court of the United States. Hampton
L. Carson, Vol. 1, p. 162. Phila., 1902.
122 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
now Forest Glen, Md., and was the nearest of the three to the
scene of his new activities. A member of the large family of
Carrolls in Maryland, and, having rendered service to the state
both in the continental and the United States congress, he was
identified with the locality. Although the owner of land in the
northern portion of the District, and uncle of Daniel Carroll
of Duddington, the largest individual owner of the land
included within the limits of the city, such interests were
evidently not looked upon in that day as disqualifying a man
from performing a duty towards the public. In fact, it will
be noted, as the narrative proceeds, that there were quite a
number of similar instances of men interested as property
holders who also became identified with the management of the
affairs of the city."
The third member of the board of commissioners was Dr.
David Stuart of Hope Park, a farm of 2000 acres, a few miles
from Fairfax Court House, Va. He was a personal friend of
the president and had become a connection by marrying
the widow of John Parke Custis, the son of Mrs. Wash-
ington. His home, some twenty miles from Alexandria, gave
him the advantage of being familiar with local conditions.
He was a practising physician.2 As may be concluded,
these appointments secured leaders in the new enterprise
who were men of affairs, as well as favorably and widely
known in the particular locality of the federal district, and,
as far as Messrs. Johnson and Carroll were concerned,
in state and national relations. No doubt the personnel of
the board had much to do with the enterprise escaping ship-
1 During the eleven years of the control of city affairs by commis-
sioners there is no instance of maladministration, although the charge
was made from time to time of favoritism towards individuals in
certain sections of the city.
2**A man of excellent character, of studious habits, inoffensive
deportment and good family .. . by his uniform integrity and irre-
proachable life, engaged and preserved, in a remarkable degree,
General Washington’s confidence and friendship.’’ Observations on
the writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 98. Henry Lee. Phila., 1839.
Advertisement offering for sale the farm of Dr. David Stuart, deceased.
Intelligencer, May 11, 1815.
2 THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 123
wreck on the rocks which were abundant enough in the
course of an undertaking that was but meagrely supplied with
funds and had hostile and jealous critics both at home and
abroad.
On the same day Washington issued the proclamation he
began a correspondence with Colonel William Deakins and Ben-
jamin Stoddert, both residents of Georgetown and men of public
spirit with whom he had come in close contact during his years
of public service. For the exact location of the city within the
new territory was to be determined, and what was, under the
circumstances, of most vital consequence, a favorable agreement
was to be made with the property holders to secure the lands
needed, not alone for the location of the public buildings, but
also for the homes and the places of business of the population
that would come to such a centre.
A paramount consideration was the revenue that might be
derived from the sale of the public property, for while the grants
from the states of Virginia and Maryland aggregating $192,000
were no doubt regarded at the time, if not ample, at least a good
working capital, yet the framers of the residence bill considered
the grants of land from individual property owners as consti-
tuting a generous and sufficient margin. This faith in the rising
market of land values, as well as a failure to realize the cost of
capital building, may be looked upon as accounting in great
part for the omission from the residence bill of a direct appro-
priation.'
Washington’s knowledge of the local situation is shown in
this letter dated Feb. 3, 1791, in which he says that, “the
competition for the location of the town now rests between the
mouth of the Eastern Branch and the lands on the river below
and adjacent to Georgetown. In favor of the former, Nature
1 An early recognition of the influence on real estate values of the
location of the new city is to be found in this letter of Washington to the
men who acted as his agents in the preliminary negotiation and from
whom he asked ‘‘the most profound secrecy.’’ He told them they
were to give the widest publicity to the proclamation which he was
forwarding, ‘‘to prevent,”’ he adds, “‘any kind of speculation.’’ Wash-
ington’s Letter Book, No. XI.
124 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
has furnished powerful advantages.! In favor of the latter
is its vicinity to Georgetown. ... These advantages have
been so poised in my mind as to give it different tendencies at
different times.”
Then he goes on to speak of the obstacle in the way of the
Georgetown locality due to the lands to the southwest of a
line “from where the road crosses Goose Creek in going from
Georgetown to the Eastern Branch,”’ which, as he expresses it,
“stands yet in the way of the latter location.” This is the first
reference to the property holder, who has come down in the
history of the city as “the obstinate Mr. Burns,” and who at
this early stage in the proceedings had shown an unyielding
disposition. A reference to a portion of Daniel Carroll’s land,
lying between that of David Burnes and Notley Young, indi-
cates that no arrangement had as yet been made with him as
to that particular section of his property.
Washington’s instructions were to purchase these lands, but
especially that of Mr. Burnes, and “to so conduct themselves
as to excite no suspicion that they are on behalf of the public.”
As to the price, Washington directs them to stipulate for two
weeks’ time to consider, in other words an option, “at the end
of which,” he adds, “you should be free to be on and off, but
the seller not so.” By such an arrangement, he explains, they
will have time to consult him. As showing the entire depend-
ence at this stage on the funds from the two states, he reminds
them that, “the circumstances of the funds appropriated by
the states of Virginia and Maryland will require that a twelve
months’ credit be stipulated.”
A week later Washington was informed by his agents of their
intention to offer Mr. Burnes as high as twelve or eighteen
pounds, or from $32 to $48 per acre, but in the event he should
ask twenty-five pounds, or $67 per acre, they would await
further instructions. So, under date of Feb. 17, 1791, Washing-
ton informs them that “to prevent delay I would wish his
lands to be purchased even at those prices rather than not
1 Jefferson, as noted above, had a similaridea of the Eastern Branch
and its future.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 125
obtain them.””! The rate of twenty-five pounds, or $67 per
acre, was the one fixed upon in the agreement made later on
with the landholders to be paid for all land taken by the
United States for public purposes. In the same letter
Washington instructs Messrs. Deakins and Stoddert to buy
as many as possible of the lots in the town site of Hamburg
or Funkstown, but “not exceeding the rate of twenty-five
pounds per acre.” Under the Maryland law a quantity of
land not exceeding one hundred and thirty acres could be
taken by condemnation, and Washington expressed the wish
to effect the transfer by sale of as much of the Hamburg
property as possible, so as not to use up this privilege, but
to have it in reserve for future contingencies.
The instructions of the president in regard to the Hamburg
property were followed, and on the 21st of February, 1791,
an agreement was entered into with owners of forty-five out
of the two hundred and eighty-seven lots agreeing to sell at the
price fixed upon in the condemnation proceedings, if it was
necessary to resort to that method?
The end of February came, and evidently nothing had been
accomplished with Mr. Burnes. In the meantime, the president
had set in motion other parts of the business. While the com-
missioners had been appointed who were empowered by the
law “under the direction of the President to survey ” a district,
and who also were given the power ‘‘to purchase or to accept ”
land, yet the president was proceeding to exercise both of these
powers. One reason, no doubt, was the fact that Mr. Carroll
was still a member of the house of representatives, his term not
expiring until March 4. In fact, the first meeting of the com-
missioners was not held until March 12. Yet Washington,
more than a month previous to the commissioners’ taking up
their work, appointed Andrew Ellicott to survey the bounds
of the District and later on Charles Pierre L’Enfant to prepare
1 Washington’s Letter Book, No. XI.
2 Papers of the Commissioners. Book of agreements. The plan
that was carried out both as to the Hamburg and the Carrollsburg
lots was an equal exchange for the lots laid out in accordance with
the plan of the city and as near as possible the same ground.
126 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
a plan of the city.! Andrew Ellicott was the first on the
scene of action, with instructions, as was done later in the
case of L’Enfant, to apply to the mayor of Georgetown for
money to defray his expenses. He received a letter of instruc-
tion from Jefferson under date of Feb. 2, 1791, “to proceed
by the first stage to the federal territory on the Potomac for
the purpose of making a survey of it.” ?
When Ellicott arrived in Georgetown to enter upon his work,
he was accompanied, according to the Georgetown Weekly
Ledger of March 12, 1791, by Benjamin Banneker, “an Ethio-
pian whose abilities as a surveyor and astronomer clearly proves
that Mr. Jefferson’s concluding that race of men were void
of mental endowments was without foundation.”
In the selection of Andrew Ellicott and Major L’Enfant,
the policy was continued of securing not only competent men
for the work, but the leading men in the various lines. Andrew
Ellicott was then in his thirty-seventh year, having been born in
Bucks County, Penn., of English stock. His father estab-
lished flour mills about ten miles west of Baltimore, and the
place still bears the name of Ellicott Mills. His father’s family
belonged to the society of friends, but in the war of the revolu-
tion the principles of the society did not prevent the son from
giving his services to the cause of his country. He became a
major in the Maryland militia.
After the war he engaged in his profession of surveyor, and was
1 The action of Washington in making these appointments resulted
in fixing in L’Enfant’s mind the notion that he was independent of the
commissioners and subordinate only to the president, —a conception
which soon led to a situation that compelled the retirement of L’En-
fant from all connection with the city, although with his tempera-
ment the result would have been the same under almost any circum-
stances.
2 Jefferson to Ellicott. Sketch of the life of Andrew Ellicott.
Mrs. Sally Kennedy Alexander. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 2. Also a
letter of Ellicott to his wife dated Alexandria, Va., Feb. 14, 1791,
announcing his arrival in that place a day or two previous. ‘‘I shall
leave this town,” he states, ‘‘this afternoon to begin the rough survey
of the ten mile square.’’ He adds, ‘‘I have been treated with great
politeness by the inhabitants, who are truly rejoiced at the prospect
of being included in the Federal District.”
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT I27
employed by the state of Virginia in the year 1784, in completing
the survey of the boundary between Virginia and Pennsylvania,
known as the Mason and Dixon line. Later on he was employed
by the state of Pennsylvania to run the west and north lines of
that state. When he was thirty-two years of age, he was
elected a member of the American Philosophical Society. In
the year 1789, he removed his residence from Baltimore to
Philadelphia. He also surveyed the western boundary of New
York state and had the assistance in this work of his brothers,
Joseph and Benjamin Ellicott. He completed that duty in
the fall of 1790, and in the following spring he was engaged to
determine the bounds of the new federal district.
Arriving at the scene of his new labors before the middle of
February, 1791, he began at once that work.!. Nearly a month
later, and on the 9th of March, 1791, there arrived in George-
town, stated the Georgetown Weekly Ledger of March 12th,
“Major Longfont, a French gentleman employed by the
President of the United States, to survey the lands contiguous
to Georgetown where the federal city is to be built.’ ?
Major L’Enfant came with instructions “to confine himself
to the lands within the Eastern Branch, the Potomac River,
the Tiber and the road leading from Georgetown to the ferry
on the Eastern Branch. He was directed to begin at the lower
end and work upwards, and nothing further is communicated
to him.’”’* In the letter of instruction to L’Enfant, written by
Jefferson on behalf of the president, he was told, “ You are
directed to proceed to Georgetown, where you will find
Mr. Ellicott employed in making a survey and map of the
federal territory. The special object in asking your aid is to
1‘*Mr. Ellicott, we learn, finished the first line of his survey of the
Federal territory in Virginia yesterday, and crossed below the Little
Falls, the river Patowmack, on the second line.” Gazette of the
United States, March 5, 1791. Date line, Georgetown, February 23.
2 Letter of L’Enfant to Jefferson. Georgetown, March 11, 1791.
Major Charles Pierre L’Enfant. J. D. Morgan. Coll. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 2.
2 Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI, March 2, 1791. Washington
to Deakins and Stoddert. The northern boundary followed generally
the line of Pennsylvania Avenue, both east and west.
128 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
have drawings of the particular grounds most likely to be
offered for the site of the federal town and buildings.” *
Washington hastened to write to his agents, “If you have
concluded nothing with Mr. Burns nor made him any offer
for his land that is obligatory, I pray you to suspend your
negotiations with him until you hear further from me.” This
was on the 28th of February, and on March 2 he again writes,
a week still in advance of the coming of L’Enfant.
After stating as above the character of the instructions given
to L’Enfant, he adds, “The purpose of this letter is to desire
you will not be yourself misled by this appearance nor be
diverted from the pursuit of the objects I have recommended to
you. I expect that your progress in accomplishing them will
be facilitated by the presumption which will arise on seeing this
operation begun at the Eastern Branch and that the proprietors
nearer Georgetown who have hitherto refused to accommodate
will let themselves down to reasonable terms. . .. I have referred
Major L’Enfant to the mayor of Georgetown for necessary aids
and expenses. Should there be any difficulties on this subject,
I would hope your aid in having them surmounted, tho’ I have
not named you to him or anybody else, that no suspicions may
be excited of your acting for the public.” Inasort of a post-
script Washington states that the above letter “explains to you
the motive of my request in a letter of the 28th ult. I now
authorize the renewal of the negotiations with Mr. Burns
agreeably to the former powers at such time and in such a
manner as likely to produce the desired effect.” ?
1The day in March, 1791, when this letter was written does not
appear in the copy in the Jefferson Papers, library of congress.
2 L. of C., Toner. Two weeks later Washington concluded it was
no longer necessary in the interests of the negotiations with the land-
owners to preserve the secret agency in the business intrusted to
Messrs. Deakins and Stoddert, and so he writes to them under date of
March 17. L. of C., Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI, p. 125. He
is discussing the situation relative to the Hamburg lot holders and
following a suggestion adds, ‘‘I am aware that by this means it will
become known that you are acting for the public, but there will be no
reason for keeping this longer secret after my arrival at Georgetown.”
‘THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 129
Thus early in March the president had adopted a practical
method of bringing the rival interests of the Eastern Branch or
Carrollsburg and of Georgetown into harmony. It is quite
evident that Mr. Burnes, who owned a large portion of the land
that now lies between the president’s house and the capitol
and for some distance to the north and the south, either did
not want to sell, or insisted as one condition at least of parting
with his property that the public buildings should be located
there, and thus early in the history of the city began that
struggle between the different sections which continued for
so many years to play an important part in local affairs. The
property holders of Carrollsburg had a similar ambition, but
it is evident from the prominence attained by Mr. Burnes in
the negotiations that in addition he made difficulties about the
terms, which in case of such a large and essential holding,
amply accounts for the attention given to it.
Washington shrewdly concluded that the spectacle of the
French engineer engaged in making a survey for the location of
the city and confining his work exclusively to the Eastern
Branch and having no inkling himself but that was to be the
chosen spot, would cause Mr. Burnes and those of like mind to
be more amenable. As the sequel showed, this did not prove
to be entirely the case, and it was not until Washington came
on and talked with the property holders that an agreement
was reached. Jefferson, however, with his notions of an area
for the city one fourth less in size than what Washington had
in mind and believing, as Washington explained, “that no offer
worthy of consideration would come from the land holders in
the vicinity of Carrollsburg,” made a rough sketch of an outline
plan for the city adapted to the Georgetown locality... The
paper is without date, but as it also contains a draft of the amen-
datory proclamation extending to the south the bounds of the
federal district and as that instrument was issued March 30,
“With regard to Mr. Burns I will confer with you on my arrival
as to what is best to do in his case, should you not have obtained a
cession from him in the meantime.”
1 Jefferson Papers, Series 4, Vol. 1, p. 121. Washington to L’Enfant,
Mount Vernon, April 4, 1791. Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI.
VOL. I—E
130 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
1791, the date of Jefferson’s suggestion can be approximately
determined as shortly before that time and probably before March
21st, on which date Washington left Philadelphia on a southern
A vieriaee Wiretar a0
en’
a
. $e aca Sete oorne
.
»
= ey
°
“8
i
;
Meta is wcreee ”
23 8
i
im
t
°
e e
° .
e e
~~
|
2 3
vedeayeeeg 27
walks,
JEFFERSON'S PLAN OF THE MALL.
tour. In a separate paragraph at the end it is provided “that
the highest summit of land in the town heretofore called Ham-
burg, within the territory with a convenient extent of grounds
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 131
circumjacent, shall be appropriated for a capitol for the accom-
modation of Congress and such other lands between George-
town and the stream heretofore called the Tyber as should,
in due examination, be found convenient and sufficient, shall
be appropriated for the accommodation of the president of the
United States for the time being and for the public offices of the
government of the United States.”
On the preceding page is a drawing showing the location of
the capitol and the president’s house, with the broad area for
“the public walks” connecting them and extending to the
south. The capitol building is represented as occupying the
western part of Hamburg with the president’s house to the east
and the public walks extending south to the Potomac. As the
limits of the town site of Hamburg on the east were about where
the present line of 19th Street, south of Pennsylvania Avenue,
passes, Mr. Jefferson’s scheme placed the president’s house near
that line, exactly reversing the relative positions of the two build-
ings as finally determined upon, but otherwise the relative loca-
tion of the two structures with the connecting space of what came
to be known as the Mall is exactly reproduced in this sketch
plan of the city, the first that was made. The rectangular
system of the streets as advocated by Mr. Jefferson is an
essential feature of the plan and contrasts with the open spaces
and rounded lines which L’Enfant imparted to the plan while
preserving the general scheme of the Jefferson sketch.
By the end of March the negotiations conducted by Wash-
ington at a distance, but as the correspondence shows, as well
as the result, with much shrewdness and knowledge of human
nature, were in such a state as to warrant his appearance in
person. So he decided to visit Georgetown. The story of
this visit and his talks with the landowners are found in his
diary! He left Philadelphia for a southern tour on the 21st of
March, 1791, and owing to the bad state of the roads came to An-
napolis by water. On the 27th instant, in the morning, he left
Annapolis, stopped at Queen Ann on the Patuxent and lodged
that night at Bladensburg. Leaving the latter place at 6.30
1 Diary of George Washington for 1789-1791.
132 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
on the morning of March 28th, he was met on the road by the
principal citizens of Georgetown, and escorted by them to
Suter’s Tavern, where he lodged.!_ He spent the day in exam-
ining the surveys of Mr. Ellicott, “who had been sent on,” he
explains, “to lay out the district of ten miles square for the
federal seat: and also the works of Major L’Enfant, who had
been engaged “to examine and make a draught of the grounds
in the vicinity of Georgetown and Carrollsburg.” 2 That even-
ing the president was entertained at dinner at Suter’s Tavern
by the mayor, Thomas Beall, and the corporation of George-
town. The president also met by appointment the three men
whom he had selected as commissioners of the city. In com-
pany with the latter the next day the president rode over the
site of the new city, but owing to a thick mist his experience
was not very satisfactory.
At six o’clock that day at his request, the land holders about
Georgetown and those about Carrollsburg met him at Suter’s.
“To this meeting,” observes Washington, “I represented that
the contention in which they seemed engaged, did not, in my
opinion, comport either with the public interest or that of their
own, that while each party was aiming to obtain the public
buildings, they might, by placing the matter on a contracted
scale, defeat the measure altogether, not only by procrastina-
tion but for want of the means necessary to effect the work,
that neither the offer from Georgetown or Carroilsburg sep-
arately was adequate to the end of insuring the object: that
both together did not comprehend more ground, nor would
afford greater means than was required for the federal city and
that instead of contending which of the two should have it,
they had better by combining more offers make a common
cause of it, and thereby secure it to the district.”
1The tavern is supposed to have been on Wisconsin Avenue near
the Virginia ferry.
2 L’Enfant states he had a rough drawing in pencil of his several
surveys, ready for the inspection of the president. L’Enfant to Jef-
ferson, Georgetown, April 4, 1791. State Department, D.C., Papers,
also Potomac Flats Case. Record, Vol. 7, p. 2179. But up to that
time he had not included in his study the western section of the city.
* THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 133
The conference ended, and Washington took dinner with °
Uriah Forrest, the city commissioners and other guests being
present. The next day, or March 30, 1791, Washington re-
cords in his diary that “the parties to whom I addressed myself
yesterday evening having taken the matter into consideration
saw the propriety of my observations . . . and therefore mutu-
ally agreed and entered into articles to surrender for public
purposes, one half of the land they severally possessed within
bounds which were designated as necessary for the city, to
stand with some other stipulations which were inserted in the
instrument, which they respectively subscribed.”
“This business being thus happily finished,’’ concludes
Washington, and one can almost hear the sigh of relief even at
this interval of time, he left Georgetown, dined in Alexandria
and reached Mount Vernon that evening. He remained there
a week, or until the 7th of April, when he started on a tour
through the southern states.
On the same day that the agreement was reached with the
owners of land designed to be included within the limits of the
new city, Washington issued a proclamation announcing the
exact lines of the federal district.’
Writing the next day to Jefferson, Washington informed him
that all the principal land holders assented to the conditions
“and it is not doubted,” he adds, “that the few who were not
present will readily concur in the measure, even the obstinate
Mr. Burns.” He also explains in courteous treatment of
the suggestions relative to the plan proposed by Mr. Jefferson,
of the location of the public buildings that “the enlarged plan
of this agreement having done away with the necessity and
1 The first line was to be run from Hunting Creek, northwest ten
miles, thence northeast ten miles. From the south corner a line was
to be run northeast ten miles, thence northwest ten miles to the end
of the second line or the north corner of the district. As the surveys
showed, the territory included within these lines was sixty square miles
of land in the state of Maryland, thirty square miles of land in the
state of Virginia and ten square miles covered by the waters of the
Potomae River and the Eastern Branch. The proclamation of
March 30, 1791, is in the Writings of George Washington. Jared
Sparks, Vol. 10, p. 148.
134 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
indeed postponed the propriety of designating the particular
spot on which the public buildings should be placed, until
an accurate survey and subdivision of the whole ground is made,
I have left out that paragraph of the proclamation.”? A
suggestion made by Mr. Jefferson to include Bladensburg in
the District is referred to in the same letter, and Washington
explains that it was not done for the reason that “it was found
on running the lines that the comprehension of Bladensburg
with the district must have occasioned the exclusion of more
important objects.”
He also mentions the terms of the agreement by which land
from Rock Creek to the Potomac and the Eastern Branch with
a breadth of about a mile and a half and a length of over three
miles had been secured.” “In consideration of the great bene-
fits we expect to derive from having the federal city laid off
upon our lands,” the paper of March 30, 1791, recites that the
subscribers agree to convey in trust the whole of their lands
upon the condition that “the president shall have the sole
power of directing the federal city to be laid off in what
manner he pleases.’ The lots, it was agreed, were to be
divided equally between the public and the individuals. For
the streets, the proprietors to receive no compensation, but for
the land taken for public uses, the owners to be paid at the
rate of twenty-five pounds per acre. The wood on the land
was to be the property of the proprietors, and for any desired
to be left standing, the public to give a proper compensation.
The proprietors were to retain the use of the land until it
should be sold, and they were also to retain their buildings
and graveyards, where the plan of the streets permitted pay-
ing for such land at the rate of twelve pounds ten shillings
per acre, and in cases where it became necessary to remove
such buildings, then the owners were to be paid their value.
1 Washington to Jefferson, March 31, 1791. Washington’s Letter
Book, Vol. XI.
2 The area finally taken was four and one half miles in length and
three and one half miles in breadth.
* The copy of this agreement preserved in the manuscript volume,
Proceedings of Commissioners, War Department, has in the list of
. THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 135
In reply to Washington’s letter of March 31st, Jefferson
writing from Philadelphia, April 10, 1791, exclaims, “The
acquisition of ground is really noble, considering that only
twenty-five pounds an acre is to be paid for any grounds taken
for the public and the streets not to be counted, which will in
fact reduce it to about nineteen pounds per acre, I think very
liberal reserves should be made for the public.” 1 At the time
the agreement was made with the property holders L’Enfant
had been on the ground some three weeks. In accordance
with the instructions received he had confined his study to
the locality known as the Eastern Branch or Carrollsburg,
which included the property of Daniel Carroll of Dudding-
ton, and therefore its northern limits were presumably some
distance to the north of the capitol building and did not ex-
tend much to the westward of that point. An undated and
unaddressed manuscript in L’Enfant’s handwriting, and evi-
dently prepared shortly after he came to the city as a report
to the president, gives the French engineer’s idea of the treat-
ment of what was ultimately only a portion of the land included
in the area of the city plan.2 L’Enfant notes almost at the
signers the aame of David Burnes. The complete list is as follows:
Robert Peter, David Burnes, James M. Lingan, Uriah Forrest, Benj.
Stoddert, Notley Young, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Overton Carr,
Thos. Beall of Geo., Chas. Beatty, Anthony Holmead, Wm. Young,
Edward Peirce, Abraham Young, James Peirce, Wm. Prout, Robert
Peter as attorney in fact for Eliphas Douglas, Benjamin Stoddert for
John Waring, and Wm. King. Three years later Benjamin Oden agreed
to convey his land on the same conditions. The latter was living at
Woodyard, Md., a few miles east of the city and he was the represen-
tative of the late Stephen West, owner of a tract of land in the eastern
section of the city. A tract of 500 acres within the city, owned by John
Waring of Prince George County, represented in the agreement by
Benj. Stoddert, was bought by Wm. Bagley for himself, and for Benj.
Stoddert, Philip Richard Fendall, Uriah Forrest and Wm. Deakins, Jr.,
but by June 29, 1791, no deed of conveyance had been made to them.
They, however, agreed to convey the land to the city in the future.
This tract was subsequently purchased by Samuel Blodget. Pro-
ceedings of Commissioners, June 27, 1791.
1 Jefferson Papers. Series 1, Vol. 4, No. 167.
2 Note relative to the ground lying on the Eastern Branch. War
Department Manuscripts. Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 26, Vol. 2.
136 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
outset what probably appealed to him as a military man and
that is the utility of the hills encircling the plain —or as
some later observers have expressed it, like the rim of a
saucer — as a means of protection. The first time the need
arose, and that was at the outbreak of the civil war, this
natural defence of the nation’s capital was promptly made
use of, and a chain of forts was built on the surrounding
hills. The next point that L’Enfant calls attention to is
Jenkins Hill, now known as Capitol Hill, which he states is
the most desirable position for the public buildings. He also
proposed the erection of a bridge over the Eastern Branch
about the present locality of the end of East Capitol Street
with a broad avenue lined with trees stretching through the
city and on to Georgetown and carried over the Potomac
on a bridge to be erected “at the place of the Two Sisters.”
In this sketch also may be found the germ of L’Enfant’s plan
for the streets and avenues, which, as carried out, adapted to
the larger area, remains after more than a century one of the
distinctive and most admired features of the nation’s capital.
“Tt is not,” he states, “the regular assemblage of houses laid
out in squares and forming streets, all parallel and uniform,
that is so necessary, for such a plan could do on a well level
plain, and when no surrounding object being interesting it
becomes indifferent, which way the opening of the streets may
be directed. Such a regular plan,” observes L’Enfant in his
imperfect English, but with a disdain that was not concealed
even though Jefferson was advocating the rectangular plan of
Philadelphia, “is but a mean continuance of some cool imagina-
tion wanting a sense of the real grand and truly beautiful, only
to be met with when nature contribute with art and diversify
the objects.”
The proposed extent of the city was not described in the agree-
ment signed by the property owners, March 30, 1791, and
Washington, as he himself states, intended what he said on that
subject to be general until more precise knowledge could be
obtained as to the lay of the land, the heights, water courses,
etc. But he maintained that by his reference to the area of
_ THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 137
the city of Philadelphia that he intended to convey the impres-
sion that the new city was not to be on a contracted scale.)
In the course of the letter written to Jefferson the day after
the Georgetown conference, Washington gives roughly the
proposed bounds of the city, which were the river and the Eastern
Branch on the south, up the latter “to or above the ferry
[which was a short distance south of the foot of Pennsylvania
Avenue, E.], including a breadth of about a mile and a half,
the whole including from three to four thousand acres.”
Three days later, on April 4th, in writing to L’Enfant, he
states that in his opinion all the lands should be included
within the bounds of the city, “lying between Rock Creek,
Potomac River and the Eastern Branch and as far up the
latter as the turn in the channel above Evans Point [half a mile
north of the ferry]; these including the flat back of Jenkins
height [since known as Capitol Hill]: thence to the road leading
from Georgetown to Bladensburg as far easterly along the same
as to include the branch which runs across it [at 7th Street
northwest], somewhere near the exterior of the Georgetown
Session ?; thence in a proper direction to Rock Creek at or
above the ford [near the present P Street bridge] ate! to
the situation of the ground.”
However, when in the course of a few days the proprietors
were asked to give legal effect to the agreement, and sign deeds
transferring to Thomas Beall of George and John M. Gantt
as trustees the lands owned by them and designed as the loca-
tion of the city, it was found that the bounds of the city were
defined in these documents and for the first time set down in
writing.
As far as it is now possible to form a conclusion about the
location of lines not surveyed but described to some extent by
landmarks long since forgotten, the area of the city as defined
1 Washington to the Commissioners, Charleston, 8.C., May 7, 1791.
Washington’s Letter Rook, Vol. XI.
2 By the Maryland law of Dec. 25, 1789, all the portion of Mont-
gomery County lying within a quarter of a mile of the limits of George-
town was made the precincts of the town and placed under the juris-
diction of the corporation.
138 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in the deeds coincided with that described by Washington in
his letter to L’Enfant and apparently with that of the city as
finally laid out.
Five of the property holders refused to sign the deeds because
of the description given of the boundary lines. They main-
tained that a greater quantity of land was included than they
had understood the president to have in mind, besides “taking
land we never had in contemplation . . . would only tend to
lessen the value of the rest... as the price of lots would
diminish in proportion as the number for sale increased.” }
On the same day the commissioners received a letter? signed
by Charles Beatty, George Walker, who had become the owner
of the property belonging to Overton Carr, Thomas Beall of
George, and Samuel Davidson, the latter having acquired the
land owned by Edward Pierce, about Lafayette Square, stating
they had signed the deeds and protesting against anything
being done “to frustrate the views of the president.” From
the outline given of the bounds of the city by the protestants
it is conjectured that it was their wish to exclude practically
all of what is now the northeastern and a portion of the north-
western sections of the city, as the northern limits were to be a
line drawn from the Eastern Branch and passing as near as
can now be judged in a straight line a short distance north of
East Capitol Street, “over Goose Creek some distance above
the fording place.” This latter location is believed to have
been a short distance north of the capitol building. From that
point to pass in a northwesterly direction “to intersect the road
leading from Georgetown to Bladensburg about half a mile
from Rock Creek.” The modern point where such a straight
line drawn from near the capitol would strike Florida Avenue,
which preserves the meanders of the old Bladensburg Road,
from 7th Street to the P Street bridge, is conjectured would
be somewhere between 18th and 16th streets, N. W.
1 Letter from Robert Peter, Notley Young, James M. Lingan,
Forrest and Stoddert to the Commissioners, April 14, 1791. Letter
Book of Commissioners, Vol. I.
2 The same.
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 139
The opposition to the larger plan of the president was so
persistent that it was not until the 29th of June, nearly three
months after the agreement had been made, that the protest-
ing property holders yielded and signed the deeds.
Before the news reached Washington of this hitch in the
affairs of the new city, he wrote to the commissioners that it
had been “intimated to me that the proprietors of Georgetown
are desirous of being comprehended within the limits of the
Federal City.”’? He adds that he sees no objection, providing
the property holders come in on the same terms as those on
the east side of Rock Creek. But that appears to have ended
the matter.’
The president, who by that time had reached Charleston,
S.C., in the course of his southern tour, expressed in a letter
to the commissioners under date of May 7, 1791,‘ his disap-
pointment that “the fair prospect which it presented when
I left Georgetown,”’ should be darkened, and then declares that
if he had discovered at the conference with the property holders
“a disposition to contract my views, I should have then pointed
out the inconveniences and the impolicy of the measure.’ In
this letter is another of the numerous allusions made at this
time by Washington to what was being done in Philadelphia
to provide buildings for the federal government and the under-
lying motive. He made use of it to give point to his admoni-
tions to all connected with the new enterprise to be prompt and
harmonious in action. He thought the friends of the residence
1The bounds of the city as understood by the protesting property
holders to have been outlined by Washington, and as given above,
were apparently identical with those found in a contemporary account,
in a letter dated March 31, 1791, written the day after the conference
by ‘‘a gentleman at Georgetown to his friend in this town,” and
printed in the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of April 9,
ee to the Commissioners, Richmond, Va., April 13, 1791.
Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI.
31t is rather singular this letter contains the first reference made,
since the federal district was located, to Georgetown being a portion
of the city. The subject was not revived until some years later, when
a movement was started to unite the two cities.
4 Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI.
140 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
bill would agree with him in the advisibility of proceeding with
as little delay as possible in view of the news from Philadelphia
as given by Mr. Jefferson in a letter dated March 27, in which
he informed Washington that on the day before a bill had been
introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature to appropriate
money for building a federal hall, a house for the president, ete.
“This (though I do not want any sentiment of mine promul-
gated with respect to it),’? Washington adds, “marks unequivo-
cally in my mind the necessity of exertion to carry the resi-
dence law into effect agreeably thereto.” !
Washington’s views on this subject were no doubt fixed the
more firmly by the intelligence he received from his private
secretary at Philadelphia, who kept his chief posted on current
happenings.”
Lear writes, “Mr. Ellicott has returned from surveying the
federal territory, and the flattering account which he gives of
the spot and the prospect of things in that quarter, added to
other information of the same kind, which has been received
here, have created a serious and to many an alarming expec-
tation that the law for establishing the permanent seat will
be carried fully into effect. This idea has heretofore been
treated very lightly by people in general here. They now
begin to view it in another shape and the opposition given in
the assembly of the state to appropriating money for the pur-
pose of erecting suitable buildings for the accommodation of
the president and congress carried along with it (in the course
1 Washington to the Commissioners, April 3, 1791. Washington
Letters, War Department. A correspondent of the Gazette of the
United States, in the issue of March 30, 1791, observes in regard to the
Pennsylvania measure, ‘‘that the design of the legislation is not to
interfere with the general arrangement already made respecting the
permanent seat of government of the United States, as such buildings
will be needed by the state in ten years.”’
Washington also refers to this movement in Pennsylvania in a
letter to Stoddert and Deakins of April 1 and uses the incident as an
argument for expedition in the business of the new city. Washing-
ton’s Letter Book, Vol. XI.
2 Tobias Lear to Washington, April 24, 1791. Letters to Wash-
ington.
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 141
of the debate) the aspect that the western part of Pennsylvania
will be more pleased with having the seat of the general gov-
ernment on the Patowmack than in Philadelphia. The con-
sideration of the question was postponed to the next session,
but it is very doubtful whether it will be determined in favor
of building or not.”
Under date of Sept. 21, 1791, Lear records a visit from “ Mr.
Fisher representing the city in providing the rented house for
the president. He had just come,” Mr. Lear naively adds,
“from a large dinner at Mr. Morris’s, and he did not appear to
be much guarded in his conversation.” Mr. Fisher explained
that the state desired to own a house in Philadelphia, so that
in the event of any attempt to move the state capital away,
this property of the state where the governor lived would be
an argument against it.!. In addition to writing to the com-
missioners and to Messrs. Deakins and Stoddert, and to
Jefferson, Washington during the few days he remained at
Mount Vernon before going south also wrote to L’Enfant,
enclosing for his inspection “the rough sketch by Mr. Jeffer-
son”’ referred to above and also another sketch but, unlike
that of Mr. Jefferson’s, not designed for any particular spot.”
1The law authorizing the erection of such a house was passed be-
fore the end of the year, appropriating $120,000. A site was secured
on 8th Street, south of Market Street, and the corner-stone was laid
May 10, 1792. On the 17th of March, 1800 [just prior to the removal
of the government from Philadelphia to the District] the legislature
authorized the sale of the house for $40,000 to the University of Penn-
sylvania. Historic Mansions of Philadelphia, Thompson Westcott,
Philadelphia, 1877.
2 L’Enfant had written to Jefferson, April 4, 1791, to send him maps
of such cities as London, Madrid, Amsterdam, Naples, Venice, Genoa
and Florence, and in a letter of April 10, 1791, Jefferson writing to
Washington speaks of L’Enfant’s request and that he had sent him plans
of Frankfurt-on-the-Main, Carlsruhe, Amsterdam, Strasburg, Paris,
Orleans, Bordeaux, Lyons, Montpelier, Marseilles, Turin and Milan.
In this letter he again reverts to his ideal of a city plan, namely, that
of Philadelphia, and adds, referring to the plans of the cities named,
“There are none of them comparable to the old Babylon revived in
Philadelphia and exemplified.’ Jefferson co Washington, State
Department, D.C., Papers. Also in Potomac Flats Case, Record,
Vol. 7, p. 2181.
142 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
It may be concluded that early in April L’Enfant began his
studies of a plan of a city covering the larger area, which had
just been publicly decided upon by Washington. But what he
devised shows no trace of the influence of any of the plans of
cities mentioned unless the plan devised by Sir Christopher
Wrenn for the rebuilding of London after the great fire of 1666
was included. For in that plan, as well as in the laying out of
the gardens of Versailles by Le Notre in 1669, are to be found
principal points with radiating approaches, a suggestion of
the distinctive feature of the L’Enfant plan.
The origin of the other principal feature, the relative positions
of the capitol and the president’s house with the connecting
mall, or public walks, a term used both by Jefferson and L’En-
fant, may be ascribed to Jefferson’s rough sketch.
Ellicott had advanced his work of surveying the lines of the
District, so that on the 15th of March the first corner-stone of
the District boundary was laid at Jones Point, just south of
Alexandria, and where in after years a lighthouse was located.
The corner-stone now forms a portion of the foundation of the
lighthouse. As this was the first event of the sort in the his-
tory of the city, an effort was made on the part of the com-
missioners to give it due prominence, but it may be presumed
that it was not so much for the benefit of future generations
as for the influence upon the contemporary mind, serving as
a sort of object lesson that the residence bill was a reality and
that the national capital city was in progress of being located
on the Potomac. So Daniel Carroll and Dr. Stuart, two of
the commissioners, with Mr. Ellicott, proceeded to the spot.
“By neglect or accident,” observes a chronicler of the occasion,
“the inhabitants were not apprized of their coming, and there-
fore had not the opportunity of executing fully that plan of
operation which their interest in the business and their respect
for the commissioners had previously suggested.’’!
The officials were met at Mr. Wise’s Tavern at three o’clock
in the afternoon by the mayor and the officers of the city, and
1 Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, April 26, 1791.
Date line, Alexandria, April 21.
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 143
after drinking a toast, a procession was formed, headed by the
town sergeant, and composed of the Alexandria Masonic Lodge
and citizens. After the stone was laid by the Masons, an
address was delivered by Rev. James Muir, the pastor of
the Presbyterian Church of Alexandria. The company then
returned to Mr. Wise’s Tavern, where a number of toasts were
drunk. Recognition was given of a strong element in the
current sentiment of the day relative to the permanent seat, by
the toast offered by the master of the masonic lodge that ex-
pressed the hope, “May jealousy, that green-eyed monster,
be buried deep under the work which we have this day com-
pleted, never to rise again within the federal district.”’! The
activity displayed in the work of the city during the open-
ing months and the rapidity with which things were done
is shown by the fact that this first corner-stone laying occurred
in about two weeks from the time the agreement had been
reached with the landowners. It is quite evident the disagree-
ment which had developed over the area of the city was of
sufficient character to warrant the exercise of great judgment
and tact in bringing about a settlement. Only five of the
nineteen signers of the agreement made a formal protest, and
it is not known whether or not they represented all the protes-
tants. At any rate, in their number were included Robert
1The stone placed there at that time was a temporary one, and in
June, 1794, a large stone was substituted for it with the lettering,
“The beginning of the Territory of Columbia.’”’ The other stones,
placed at an interval of a mile apart and for the greater part still in
place, are of sandstone one foot square and four feet in height, two
above ground, with bevelled top. On one side are cut the words,
‘Jurisdiction of the United States,’ with the distance in miles and
the number of the stone. On the opposite side is the werd ‘‘ Mary-
land”’ or ‘‘ Virginia’’ and the year 1792, with also arecord of the mag-
netic variations. The lines were cleared forty feet wide.
A description of the stones and their location, with many photo-
graphic illustrations, is to be found in papers by Marcus Baker and
Fred E. Woodward, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vols. 1 and 10.
In a certificate dated Jan. 1, 1793, nearly two years after beginning
the survey, Ellicott described the work that he had done on the District
boundary and announced its completion as well as that of a map of
the territory. Andrew Ellicott, His Life and Letters. By Catherine
V. Mathews, p. 95, New York, 1908.
144 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Peter, entitled to the distinction of leading citizen, Notley
Young, probably the third largest owner of land within the
proposed limits of the city, Uriah Forrest, who entertained the
president at dinner while he was in Georgetown negotiating
with the landowners, Benjamin Stoddert, one of Washington’s
confidential agents in the preliminary negotiations, and James
M. Lingan, whom Washington had just appointed surveyor
of the newly organized office of the port of Georgetown.
Of the four property holders who took sides with Washington
as set forth in the counter protest, two of them were newly
interested in the city; namely, George Walker, a Scotchman
and a merchant in Philadelphia,’ and Samuel Davidson of
Annapolis, Md.
It was evidently thought best to hasten the survey of the
city and to fix definitely upon the boundary lines, and so Elli-
cott was called in from his work on the bounds of the ten-mile
square.”
Under date of June 30, 1791, the commissioners wrote to the
property holders to give such information as they have in re-
gard to the lines of their land “to Major L’Enfant and Major
Ellicott” for the general plat of the city, which indicates that
Ellicott was also then engaged in the survey of the city. One
of the marginal notes on the map of L’Enfant, which was re-
tained on the engraved map, much to the chagrin of L’Enfant,
especially as the legend on the map ending with the words
“By Charles P. L’Enfant”’ was omitted, stated “that in order
1 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 156. Allen C. Clark,
Washington, 1901.
2“*Georgetown, June 4. On Saturday last, Mr. Ellicott, the geog-
rapher general of the United States, completed six main lines of the
federal city. He is now engaged in clearing and bounding the lines of
the district of ten miles square.” Maryland Journal and Baltimore
Advertiser, June 10, 1791.
*‘T hope to-morrow will prove more favorable for me to proceed
laying down those posts which you prescribe in the letter which I
this moment receive from Mr. Ellicott, who brought it himself to me
and shall, according to your direction, join his endeavor with mine
in running as much as possible of the water course as may serve to
connect the whole of our different surveys together.’’ L’Enfant to
Jefferson, Georgetown, May 10,1791. State Department, D.C., Papers.
-
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 145
to execute the above plan Mr. Ellicott drew a true meridional
line”’ so that Ellicott’s name alone appeared on the map.!
To provide a city fund and to be able to pay the advances
made for the expenses of the surveyors, which in the case of the
boundary work done by Mr. Ellicott also involved furnishing
tents and the outlay for camp life, an order was drawn early in
April upon the treasurer of the western shore of Maryland for
the first instalment of $24,000, or one third of the donation
promised by that state. The next month Virginia was suffi-
ciently in funds to honor orders drawn by the commissioners.”
John M. Gantt, who was one of the trustees named in the
deed of trust that was finally signed by the land holders, was
chosen at this time by the board of commissioners as secretary
of the board, while William Deakins, Jr., was made treasurer.
The secretary received a salary, while the treasurer was allowed
a compensation of 1 per cent upon all monies paid by him. He
was required to give a bond of 10,000 pounds.’
Tke presence and voice of Washington were again required
before the property holders yielded. He spent over two days
in the city in June, and on the last day of his stay, on the 30th
of June, the commissioners were able to record the names of
fourteen property holders who had signed deeds transferring
their property to trustees for the purposes named in the trust.
In this list are to be found the names of all the protesting
property owners.‘
1'This legend from the engraved map is quoted in the earliest de-
scription of the city in book form in an appendix to the second edition
of an ‘‘Oration on the Discovery of America,’ delivered in London,
Oct. 12, 1792, by Elhanan Winchester, and printed in that city with an
engraved plan of Washington.
2 Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI, April, 1791. Also Proceed-
ings of Commissioners, May 9, 1791.
3 Proceedings of Commissioners, June 30,1791. Mr. Gantt served
the corporation of Georgetown in the office of recorder from 1789 to
1809.
4The deeds of trust executed by Robert Peter, Notley Young, Ben-
jamin Stoddert, James Pierce, Anthony Holmead, Daniel Carroll of
Duddington, James M. Lingan, David Burnes, Jonathan Slater, Samuel
Davidson, William Young, Abraham Young, Charles Beatty, Clement
Woodward and George Walker were lodged in the care of the com-
VOL. I—L
146 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
A comparison of the names of landowners to the agreement
of March 30, with those attached to the deeds of June 30,
shows that during that interval of three months a good deal
of land had changed hands.1. The speculation in land, feared
by Washington, began at the inception of the city and con-
tinued with increasing volume for several years. The pro-
ceedings of the commissioners give some of these specula-
tive transactions. For example, it is stated that a tract
of 500 acres owned by John Waring of Prince George
County, Md., represented in the agreement by Benjamin
Stoddert, was bought by William Bagley for himself and for
Benjamin Stoddert, Philip Richard Fendall, Uriah Forrest
and William Deakins, Jr.
The names of Samuel Davidson, Clement Woodward and
George Walker appear as landowners for the first time in the
list of those who signed deeds. An agreement was also recorded
by Jonathan Slater relative to land he had contracted to buy
from John Prout.
Another but later list of proprietors of lands within the city
is found in a letter dated Georgetown, March 9, 1792, written
by Uriah Forrest to Major L’Enfant, sending him a testimonial
which he states is signed by all the proprietors with the excep-
tion of two, and it may be concluded that the two names needed
to bring the list up to fifteen are those of Daniel Carroll
and Notley Young. All the names of those signing deeds
June 30 are found in this later list with the exception of the two
missioners and directed by them to be recorded in the general court
records. Proceedings of Commissioners, June 29, 1791.
1A fairly complete list of the owners of the land within the area
selected for the city before the location was announced can be made
up from the names of the nine owners given in a previous chapter and
from the four names not included in that list attached to the paper
sent to President Washington in the fall of 1790, offering property
in the vicinity of Georgetown. This list of thirteen of the nineteen
signers of the March agreement is as follows: Daniel Carroll of Dud-
dington, Notley Young, David Burnes, Robert Peter, Anthony Hol-
mead, Benjamin Stoddert, James M. Lingan, William Young, Abra-
ham Young, Thomas Beall of George, William Deakins, Jr., Uriah
Forrest and George Beall.
- THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 147
named above and the following: James Pierce, Anthony Hol-
mead, Jonathan Slater, William Young, Charles Beatty and
Clement Woodward.
At this conference in June Washington was able to show a
partially completed sketch by L’Enfant of the plan for the city,
and no doubt that had an influence upon the views of the
property owners.
“But the moment he [Washington] appeared, all difficulties
vanished,” states the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Adver-
tiser, July 5, 1791. “Instead of Washington’s plans being
thwarted, as had been anticipated, the landowners resigning all
narrow considerations cheerfully entered into the necessary
business of making the proper conveyances, which being com-
pleted to the utmost wishes of the president, he then submitted
to the inspection of the proprietors and a large number of
gentlemen attending the plan of the city, which had for several
weeks occupied the attention and talents of Colonel L’Enfant,
assisted by the Baron de Graff, and which with some small
alterations he had determined to adopt.
“By this plan and the president’s explanation, it appears
that the buildings for the legislature are to be placed on Jenkin’s
Hill on the land of Daniel Carroll, Esq. of Duddington, about
two miles from Rock Creek, and about one and a quarter from
the Eastern Branch, and that the houses of the president and
for the great departments are to be situated on the rising
ground adjoining Hamburg within one mile of Georgetown
and about one and a quarter from the houses of legislation, an
arrangement which afforded the most general approbation,
satisfying each interested individual.” ”
In submitting to the president what he called “the general
map —an incomplete drawing only correct as to the situa-
tion and distance of objects,”’ L’Enfant, under date of June 22,
1 Forrest to L’Enfant. Coll. Hist. Soc., pp. 136-138, Vol. 2.
2In a few years a bitter controversy sprang up relative to the
grouping of the department buildings about tle president’s house, it
being maintained that the original understanding was that they were
to be located near the capitol.
148 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
1791, gave an account of the scope of his plan and an explana-
tion of its principal features.’
This report is merely an amplified form of some of the mar-
ginal descriptive notes in the existing manuscript plan which
in its main features was evidently given shape at this time.
Changes were made, but it is concluded the general scheme
was not altered. This plan came to be known as “the large
plan,’’ “the original plan,’ and unlike the one that has been
preserved, contained the numbers of the squares.? L’Enfant
explained in this letter to Washington that his “ whole atten-
tion was given to the combination of the general distribu-
tion of the grand local’’; that is, to interpret the thought
thus obscurely expressed, owing to the use of a language foreign
to the writer, he had devoted his time to a general study of the
site and to devising a plan for its most effective treatment and
use. He tells something of his method. “Having first de-
termined some principal point,” he states, “to which I wished
making the rest subordinate, I next made the distribution
regular with streets at right angles, north-south and east-west.
But afterwards I opened others in various directions as avenues
to and from every principal place, wishing by this not merely
to contrast with the general regularity nor to afford a greater
variety of pleasant seats and prospects, . . . but principally
to connect each part of the city with more efficacy by, if I
may so express, making the real distance less from place to
place.”
It is also apparent that L’Enfant originated the idea of
bringing the post-road, the main artery between the north and
the south, through the city; at least he explains in this report
that several of the avenues provided in his plan were necessary
to connect with the “out roads,’’ as he terms them, specifying
1L’Enfant to Washington. War Department Manuscripts. Also
Coll. Hist. Soe., p. 32, Vol. 2.
2 Andrew Ellicott to the Commissioners, Oct. 13, 1792. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book. The only existing L’Enfant plan was first printed
in 1887 by the Coast and Geodetic Survey for use by the government
in the suit known as the Potomac Flats Case and was admitted in
evidence as L’Enfant’s plan of the city.
* THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 149
the Bladensburg Road and the Eastern Branch Road. The
connecting link through the city in the case of the first-named
road was Maryland Avenue in its eastern section as shown in
the Ellicott topographical map of the District, and in the case of
the second, Pennsylvania Avenue. It will be recalled, in his first
account of the proposed city plan, a bridge over the Eastern
Branch and one over the Potomac just above Georgetown
were to provide for the continuance of the eastern and western
ends of Pennsylvania Avenue into the adjoining country of
Maryland and Virginia. One of the first things done by the
commissioners was to bring the Bladensburg Road through the
city by opening Maryland Avenue.!
“After much menutial [sic] search for an eligible situation,”
continues L’Enfant in his report, “prompted, I may say, from a
fear of being prejudiced in favor of a first opinion, I could dis-
cover no one so advantageously to greet the congressional
building as is that on the west end of Jenkin’s Heights,’”’ and
then adds in fine phrase, “which stands as a pedestal waiting
for a monument.” ”
L’Enfant named in this report as the site of the “ presidential
palace,” a term which originated with him and was used during
1 The post-road between the north and the south at that time was the
Bladensburg Road that ran along the ridge of the hills, not descend-
ing into the plain where the city was built until Florida Avenue and 7th
Street was reached. A southern spur of the road crossing the original
bounds of the city at Maryland Avenue and 15th Street, N..E. passed
just to the west of the Eastern Branch to the ferry at the foot of 14th
Street E. The new section of the road provided by the city builders
followed the present line of Maryland Avenue to a point, it is conjectured,
quite near the site of the capitol, then bending slightly to the north
and passing over Tiber Creek at the ford and continuing west and north
to what was known as the F Street ridge. The continuation of the road
west of 15th Street was probably in part along what is now Pennsylvania
Avenue and thence along K Street and over the bridge spanning Rock
Creek, which the commissioners built, the one erected several years before
by the Georgetown authorities on the line of M Street being in ruins.
2A few weeks earlicr John Trumbull, the portrait painter, arrived
in Georgetown from a southern journey and rode with L’Enfant “over
the ground on which the city has since been built: where the Capitol
now stands was then a thick wood.” Autobiography of John Trumbull,
p. 106. New Haven, 1841.
150 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the early years by the commissioners in referring to the presi-
dent’s house, “the ridge which attracted your attention at the
first inspection of the ground [probably referring to Washing-
ton’s visit in the previous March] on the west side of the Tiber
entrance.” The department buildings he placed near to the
president’s house and on the way leading to the capitol, and,
after speaking of the view of the river with Alexandria in the
distance as an advantage to the location chosen for the presi-
dent’s residence, he shows an artist’s appreciation of noble
surroundings by pointing out the connection between the
gardens and park provided as a setting for the executive man-
sion with the public walk and the avenues to the capitol. He
also outlines his plan of having the waters of the Tiber “issuing
from under the base of the congress building may then form a
cascade of forty feet height or more than one hundred feet wide,
which would produce the most happy effect in falling down
to fill up the canal and discharge itself in the Patowmack.”’
He also refers to the proposed location of an equestrian statue
of Washington, voted by the continental congress in 1783, on
the site now occupied by the Washington monument.
From this description which was written to accompany the
plan itself, it would be almost possible to reproduce his drawing,
if the original had been lost.
In addition to harmonizing the variant views of the land
holders and examining the progress made in preparing a plan
for laying out the city, which, as stated, was in such a forward
condition that it was shown to the property holders in June,
1791, Washington also decided to begin at once to realize
on the real estate just acquired, by having a public sale of lots
to be held on the 14th of the following October. The terms
fixed upon were a deposit at the time of the sale of 8 per cent
of the purchase price, the balance secured in bonds to be paid
in three equal annual instalments.1_ A month before the sale,
however, the cash payment required was looked upon as too
small, and 25 per cent instead of 8 was required.
On the date decided upon for the sale of lots, the commis-
1 Proceedings of the Commissioners, June 30, 1791.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT i Fey |
sioners also asked for proposals for building the canal shown
on the plan to connect James Creek that had its source south
of Capitol Hill and emptied into the Eastern Branch, just east
of Greenleaf’s Point, with the Tiber which flowed on the west
at the base of that elevation. By providing a connecting link
between these two interior waterways, it was believed the trade
of the new city would be benefited.
The early mention of this proposed improvement gives
further emphasis to the contemporary estimate of the value of
the Eastern Branch as a harbor and a place of trade.! The
canal formed of the Tiber as far east as 3d Street, W.
and then a link connecting with the James Creek, as well
as what L’Enfant called “an additional branch” that led off
from it to a point on the Eastern Branch just west of the Navy
Yard, was shown on the city plan as exhibited, June 30, by
Washington to the property holders, as is established by a
reference to the canal by L’Enfant in a letter to Washington
dated some six weeks after the latter’s visit to the city.2_ This
letter is highly characteristic showing the ardor of an artist
for his conception, which, in this case, had already taken form.
The scope of L’Enfant’s idea of the city was not merely to
devise a system of streets and avenues suited to the needs of a
city that was to be the capital of a small country, but one to
meet the needs when the United States should become populous
and powerful.
It was to be a grand centre of a great nation, and in order
that his plan, which he ‘notes in this letter with gratitude has
met with the approbation of Washington, may be carefully
matured, he urges that, instead of at once disposing of the city’s
property in the lots, a loan be made, and with the money
thus secured he proposed to carry out fully his scheme, which
included not only a picturesque and attractive arrangement
of thoroughfares varied with gardens and parks and the flash
1 Ellicott speaks of the latter as ‘‘one of the best harbors in the
country.’’ Ellicott’s observations on the sale of city lots. Potomac
Flats Case, Record, Vol. 7, p. 2201. War Department Manuscripts
2L’Enfant to Washington, Aug. 19, 1791. Potomac Flats Case,
Record, Vol. 7, p. 2193. War Department Manuscripts.
152 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
and play of waters, but also the placing of the public buildings
designed and located with reference to their surroundings.
Then when the city is supplied with stately public edifices,
he urges, will be the time to allow private individuals to acquire
land within its limits and to erect buildings for residence and
business, under such restrictions that they shall harmonize
with the surroundings. It may be imagined how such a
vision, it might almost be called, how such a dream city, would
be regarded by the men of that day, who were bending their
energies to the rude work of subduing to the uses of civiliza-
tion the unbroken forests and the virgin meadows of a new
country.
To that generation and even to the mind of Washington,
who had the breadth of view that determined him to plan
a city for the future and not merely for the present, and which
led him to provide an ample area and to accept L’Enfant’s
elaborate scheme of city planning, the practical thing to do
was to realize at the earliest moment on the appeal to the
imagination of an opportunity to buy lots in a town site
selected as the national centre of a country of such boundless
possibilities. There is no question but that Washington and
his associates believed that a prompt sale would yield a golden
return.
As the first conflict between the imaginative mind of L’En-
fant and the practical needs of financing the new city, and as
the beginning of what proved to be an irrepressible conflict,
to end, not in compromise, but in a fight to the finish, this letter
of L’Enfant’s is illuminating. At the time it made apparently
no impression, for, as Washington afterwards said, he did not
believe L’Enfant would be “so tenacious of his plans.’ But,
as the sequel proved, L’Enfant was in dead earnest as to his
ideas, and also determined that they were to be carried out in
his own way.
His reference to his plan as “wholly new” is a judgment
which the passage of years has not changed. At that time
L’Enfant was having the assistance of Benjamin Ellicott, a
brother of Andrew Ellicott, and speaks of him as being most
6
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 153
indispensable to complete the work begun “as it is necessary
to have a number of lots for houses measured and marked.” 4
L’Enfant was apparently conforming his ideas to those of
Washington, at least in regard to placing the property at once
on the market. The commissioners, by order of Oct. 6, 1791,
instructed Mr. Ellicott (apparently Andrew Ellicott) to lay
off lots in readiness for the coming sale in the squares about
the sites where the capitol and president’s house were to be
built and also on the Eastern Branch and about Hamburg.
Six weeks after Washington left Georgetown with harmony
restored, L’Enfant presented him with the plan “altered agree-
ably to your directions.” * The date line of L’Enfant’s letter
of transmission is Georgetown, August 19, but in a letter to the
commissioners dated August 28, Jefferson states that, “Major
L’Enfant having also arrived here and laid the plan of the
Federal city before the President,” which leads to the infer-
ence that he took the plan in person to Philadelphia. The
president had not as yet given his approval to the plan, and
as there were other questions relative to the new city raised
by the commissioners, the president arranged to call in the
counsel of men about him.’ As a result of this conference,
Mr. Jefferson records that he and Mr. Madison, as they were
to pass through Georgetown on their way to Virginia, at the
suggestion of the president would meet with the commis-
sioners and communicate to them the sentiments expressed at
the conference and approved by the president. Such a meeting
was arranged to take place early in September. In the same
general language Jefferson reports to Washington, under date
of Georgetown, Sept. 8, 1791, that he and Madison met with
the commissioners, “who agreed to the various things pro-
posed at the conference in Philadelphia.” ¢
1L’Enfant to Washington, Aug. 19, 1791. Potomac Flats Case,
Record, Vol. 7, p. 2193. War Department Manuscripts.
2 The same.
3 Jefferson to the Commissioners, Philadelphia, Aug. 28, 1791.
Commissioners’ Letter Book.
4 Letters to Washington. Incidentally Jefferson notes a further
action taken which, as it carried out one of his own ideas, no doubt
154 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Nine years later in a memorial to congress on the subject of
his claim for remuneration for his services, L’Enfant says that
alterations were made in the plan as early as August, 1791, by
his own hand at the recommendation of the president and Mr.
Jefferson and that these changes comprised the suppression of
several lines of avenues. Such changes, he adds, were made
in the plan before it was submitted to Washington in Philadel-
phia in the latter part of August. He further states that “the
engraved plan is agreeable to the original lines of the grand
division of the city.” ! In L’Enfant’s letter of Aug. 18, 1791,
occurs the first mention of his scheme of reservations in addi-
tion to those designed for governmental and ornamental uses.
The latter are fully set forth in the marginal notes of the
plan which has been preserved, and that circumstance might
indicate that the notes were at that time on the plan. Ac-
cording to L’Enfant’s description, sites were to be set aside
for the local courts, national bank, national church, market,
exchange and theatre.
An effort was made to have a reduced drawing of the plan en-
graved for use at the first sale of lots to be held October 17, so
that those who attended might know the position of the prop-
erty to be sold. L’Enfant spent some time in Philadelphia
preparing a drawing suitable for the engraver. On the 9th of
September the commissioners wrote to him that, having named
the city and the District, “the title of the map will therefore
be a map of the city of Washington in the Territory of Colum-
bia.” He was also informed that the streets, which are 80
to 110 feet in width, are to be “named alphabetically one way
was specially interesting to him ; namely, an agreement as to a building
regulation that the walls of houses on the avenues were to be exactly
thirty-five feet high and none to be higher in any other part of the
city.
setaieeal to the Senate and the House, Philadelphia, Dec. 7, 1800.
Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 100, Vol. 1. There is no further record that will
throw light on the personnel of this conference on the city plan or of
what, if any, changes were agreed upon. The most direct testimony
is the statement of L’Enfant that the changes suggested by the presi-
dent when he saw the plan in the new city the last of June had been
made when the plan was submitted in the following August.
THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 155
and numerically the other; the former divided into north
and south letters, the latter into east and west numbers from
the Capitol.” Major Ellicott, he was told, would furnish him
the soundings of the Eastern Branch, which he was to insert
in the map, and also Ellicott was expected to furnish him with
the direction of the proposed post-road, to be noticed in the
map. It was desired that 10,000 copies be struck off.1 No
reference is made in this letter or elsewhere to the naming
of the avenues, that were laid out from 130 to 160 feet wide.
The names are not on the L’Enfant map that has been pre-
served, but are on theengraved plan. Fifteen of these thorough-
fares, with the exception of Georgia Avenue, changed to Poto-
mac Avenue, had the same designations as they have to-day ;
namely, that of the various states which up to the year 1792
had come into the union. In after years the avenues on the
map without names were designated as follows: Tennessee,
Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana.
But in spite of evident pressure, the business of the engraving
of the map dragged, and in consequence the engraved copies
were not available for use at the first sale of lots, as had been
confidently expected by the president and the commissioners.
What the expectations were is shown in part by a resolution
adopted by the commissioners as late as September 24, three
weeks before the date of the sale instructing Major L’ Enfant
to send copies of the engraved plan to such parts in the north-
ern states as he might think proper. One explanation of the
failure is given in a letter of Tobias Lear to Washington.”
He learned from the engraver, he states, who was “to print a
map of the city,” that in addition to not being able to get the
copper for the plate, “that the draft he had in his possession
was so incorrect that it would be highly improper to engrave
from it, and that there was no possibility of remedying this,
but by having the large draft which Major L’Enfant had
carried with him to the Federal City.”
Two days later Lear informs Washington that in order to
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book.
2 Letters to Washington, Oct. 9, 1791.
156 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
gratify some persons who wished to see the plat of the federal
city, “I got from the engraver a draft which Major L’Enfant
had left in his hands (not the reduced one for the plate) and
which he said could be of no manner of use to him. ‘This,
though the engraver says it is not accurate, serves to give a good
general idea of the spot and plan of the city.” 1? L’Enfant’s
explanation of the same circumstances and also of the three
drawings of the plan referred to by Mr. Lear is to be found in
a letter which he wrote a few months later when his struggle
for supremacy in the affairs of the city had ended with his
enforced retirement from all connection with that undertaking.”
He states he did not have in his possession, when he was in
Philadelphia, the results of the survey in the city done by Ben-
jamin Ellicott, “which I intended to make the basis of the
drawing of the remainder from the original plan and upon a
reduced scale for engraving.” Desiring, he adds, “to comply
with the president’s wish in obtaining as soon as possible that
engraving, finally determined me to request the assistance of
Mr. Benjamin Ellicott, who, though not professional in draw-
ing, I conceived to be the most proper person to prepare the
work in that part, more especially which himself and Mr.
Roberdeau had with accuracy laid down upon the ground —
the more to facilitate this I gave him the sketch which you
had taken from the former undertaker of the plate, begging
him to finish as much as he could in pencil, only without the
assistance of a large map which I had at that time in use and
by which we together would correct and complete the whole.”
What Washington thought of the failure to have the map
engraved was expressed in a letter written after the sale, in
which he said, “There has been something very unaccountable
in the conduct of the engraver, yet I cannot be of the opinion
that the delays were occasioned by L’Enfant.”’ ?
1 Letters to Washington, Oct. 9, 1791.
?L’Enfant to Tobias Lear, Philadelphia, Feb. 17, 1792. Coll.
Hist. Soc., p. 144, Vol. 2.
* Washington to David Stuart, Philadelphia, Nov. 20,1791. Poto-
mac Flats Case, Record, Vol. 7, p. 2205. State Department, D.C.,
Papers.
P THE LOCATION OF THE DISTRICT 157
This “large map” or “general map” or “original map,” as
L’Enfant on different occasions speaks of it, was the ostensible
cause of the beginning of the breach in his relations with the
commissioners which rapidly widened. It seems that, not
having an engraved map to show prospective buyers at the
sale, the commissioners requested L’Enfant to allow his map
to be exhibited. This he refused, and his action was made the
subject of complaint on the part of Dr. Stuart in a letter to
Washington, October 29. The president, in his reply,! shows
that he understood the shortcomings and faults of a man of
L’Enfant’s talents and temperament, who, he said, “was
better qualified than any one who had come within my knowl-
edge in this country or indeed in any other, the probability
of obtaining whom could be counted upon . . . for prosecuting
public works and carrying them into effect.”’ He admits that
he did not expect to meet “with such perverseness” as L’En-
fant’s late conduct exhibited, for while he knew he would be
“tenacious of his plans as to conceive they would be marred
if they underwent any change or alteration, but I did not sup-
pose he would interfere further in the mode of selling lots than
by giving his opinion with his reasons in support of it.”
Washington’s estimate of L’Enfant’s professional attain-
ments is given in the same letter. He regarded him not only
as a scientific man, but one who added considerable taste to
professional knowledge. He stated that he had given L’En-
fant to understand that he must in the future look to the com-
missioners for directions. The president urges expedition in
having the plan engraved “as soon as a correct draught”’ is
prepared, “because I have understood that Mr. Eliicott has
given it as his opinion it was lucky that engravings did not
come out from the first plan inasmuch as they would not have
been so perfectly exact as to have justified a sale by them.”
In urging despatch in the business of the city, the president
states, he does not wish it to be inferred that such advice pro-
ceeds from any doubt he harbors that the enemies to the meas-
ure can shake the establishment of it. “For it is with pleasure
1Noy. 20, 1791. State Department, D.C., Papers.
158 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
I add as my opinion that the roots of the permanent seat are
penetrating deep and spreading far and wide.” He notes that
the eastern states are getting more reconciled to it, but he
points out that the “irreconcilables will continue to aim all
the side blows in their power.” To the latter he attributes the
rumors spread at the sale that congress would never reside
there.
CHAPTER VII
THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT
Tue failure to have engraved plans in readiness for the
advertised sale of lots to begin Oct. 17, 1791, the rumors in-
dustriously circulated by the enemies of the location that the
government would never remove there and the refusal of
L’Enfant to allow “the map of the federal city”’ to be exhibited
at the sale were not the only adverse factors. When the ap-
pointed day arrived, the weather was such that the prospective
buyers could not meet on the ground.!
It is probable the auctioneer, James McKenna, conducted
the sale at the Fountain Inn of John Suter near the foot of
Wisconsin Avenue, as the latter was duly paid a bill “for
wine and wood furnished at the sale of lots.” The impor-
tance of the occasion was enhanced by the presence of Wash-
ington, who was there on the first day, and with him were
Jefferson and Madison.2 But of the others who attended
there is no record except the general observation of Com-
missioner Stuart that “the chief purchasers yesterday and the
day before were from the westward. I was happy to find
to-day that they were intermixed with purchasers from Caro-
lina and Norfolk.”’* As the result of the auction which
came to an end on the third day, “as the business seemed
1“'The weather has been much against us,’’ writes Dr. Stuart to
Washington at the close of the last of the three days the sale was
continued. ‘‘Could we have been on the ground and exhibited a
general plan, I believe it would have aided the sales considerably.”
Letters to Washington. A plat, however, was displayed of the por-
tion of the city where the lots offered for sale were located. Proceed-
ings of Commissioners, April 17, 1795.
2 The same.
3 Washington’s Letters, Oct. 17, 1791.
‘The same.
159
160 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
to flag a little to-day” (Oct. 19),! thirty-five lots were sold,
yielding an aggregate of $8756 to the funds of the city,
but in actual cash a little more than $2000, if all the pur-
chasers availed themselves of the terms of sale, the balance
of the money being in deferred payments. All the lots sold
were in the vicinity of the president’s house, although Elli-
cott had been instructed to lay off lots in readiness for the
sale in the squares near the president’s house, the capitol,
on the Eastern Branch and near Hamburg.” It is pos-
sible that only the portion of his task in the vicinity
of the president’s house was completed in time, which may
account for the transactions at the first public auction being
confined to that locality. There is hardly a word of comment
on record as to the result of this first effort to realize on the
most important asset which the enterprise had at its command.
A week later Washington expressed himself hopefully in his
reference to the new city in the course of the message to con-
gress, when he said, “there is a prospect, favored by the rate
of sales which have already taken place, of ample funds for
carrying on the necessary public buildings. There is every
expectation of their due progress.” At any rate, he did not
wish to give comfort to the enemies of the enterprise by ex-
pressing any lack of confidence at the very outset. He may
have had in mind, too, the sales of lands within the city limits
owned by individuals, and there is evidence that quite a brisk
business was done.
But at this distance of time, the sale of thirty-one lots, with
a total cash payment of some $2000, seems rather inadequate
compared with what was to be done. Dr. Stuart told Washing-
ton “that the general opinion is the lots have gone too high.” ®
The highest price paid for a lot, and the standard lot was
estimated to contain 5265 square feet and 50 feet front, was
$534, and the lowest was $162, although several lots were sold
for a few dollars less, but as Dr. Stuart explained to his chief,
1 Washington’s Letters, Oct. 17, 1791.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Oct. 6, 1791.
3 The same.
. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 161
“You will understand that they are all actual sales, excepting
about four among the lowest,” so that it is evident the com-
missioners stepped in to prevent the property going lower than
the level agreed upon.
The low limit was evidently at that time about $160 per lot,
and as it was determined, later on when the ground had been
surveyed, that there were some ten thousand lots belonging to
the public, the value of the property would on such a basis
reach an aggregate of $1,600,000. It was soon realized in the
affairs of the city, the difference between an estimated and a
real value, especially as the latter was determined by conditions
over which the commissioners had no control and could not
foresee, as, for example, the depressing influence upon business
and the stringency in the money market caused by the dis-
turbed and uncertain situation in France which, in the fall of
1791, had not as yet reached an acute stage. As will be seen
as the narrative proceeds, the development of the city in the
early years was much retarded by the unfavorable condition
of trade, amounting almost to a panic that marked the period
leading up to the general war which soon convulsed the whole of
Europe.”
At that period the “ad” writer was not much of a factor in
the development of enterprises dependent upon the codperation
of the public, but it seems that something of the method of a
later day may be traced in an article that appeared in the
Maryland Journal, Sept. 30, 1791, more than two weeks before
the time fixed for the sale of lots. This article has a further
1A contemporary estimate of values in the new city is found in a
request of Tobias Lear to L’Enfant to buy for him a lot at the sale
“‘provided the price should not exceed $500.”’ Lear to L’Enfant,
Philadelphia, Oct. 12, 1791. Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 133, Vol. 2.
2‘*You have certainly heard of the extraordinary crush which has
taken place here, at New York and Boston, of persons dealing in paper
and of good merchants and others who had dealings with paper men.
It has produced gereral stagnation of money contracts which will
continue until it is known who stands and who falls during this crisis.”
Jefferson to Commissioners, Philadelphia, April 20, 1792. War
Department Manuscripts. Potomac Flats Case, p. 2213, Record,
Vol. 7.
VOL. I M
162 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL .
interest, as it is the first printed account of the city. “The
plan,” it was stated, “was designed and drawn by the celebrated
Major L’Enfant, and is an inconceivable improvement upon
all other cities in the world, combining not only convenience,
regularity, elegance of prospect and a free circulation of air, but
everything grand and beautiful that can possibly be introduced
into a city.”” The writer declares that the plan “will not only
produce amazement in Europe, but meet the admiration of all
future ages.”
There is nothing to indicate a feeling of discouragement at
this time among those interested actively in the new city. In
fact, all the official acts pointed to a belief that the enterprise
was to be successful. One that may be cited was the issue of
building regulations, a municipal function conferred on the
commissioners by the Maryland legislature. In this instance
the president of the United States was mentioned as joining
with the commissioners in their preparation and promulgation,
which illustrates the closeness of attention given by Wash-
ington to city affairs.1 The conference held in Georgetown
with the commissioners on the occasion of the visit of Jeffer-
son and Madison included the subject of the regulations for
building. At that time the commissioners decided upon
the rules which were formally promulgated Oct. 17, 1791.
This action gave official sanction to the idea that build-
ing operations were expected and that the new city was not
merely to be the scene of speculative land operations or of
the erection of buildings for the use of the government.
The regulations in the requirements as to the character of
the buildings to be erected were unusual in that day. The new
structures were not only to be substantial, but were to be har-
monious. For only brick and stone were to be used, and no
building was to be higher than forty feet, and on the avenues
lower than thirty-five feet, thus ensuring a sky-line that would
1 Jefferson to Washington, dated Georgetown, Sept. 8, 1791, giv-
ing answers to certain questions in Washington’s handwriting relating
to the building regulations and other details which had been prepared
for this conference. Washington Papers. Sparks Index Series, Vol.
76, p. 409.
- THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 163
be pleasing. This latter provision, for the first time attempted
outside of the continent of Europe, was suggested by Jefferson
as early as the preceding fall, who states that he was pleased with
the results of such a system in Paris.!
Party walls were allowed and vaults beneath the streets
were prohibited, and both of these provisions were probably
derived from the building code of Philadelphia.2 There
were to be no frame buildings in the city except for tem-
porary uses, and this restriction continued to be a part of
the regulations until the year 1796. A building line was es-
tablished and provision was made for applications for permits
by those proposing to build to the person appointed by the
commissioners to superintend the buildings within the city.
The date of the first sale of lots also marks the beginning of
the independent career of the city or rather its control by the
commissioners. For while these officials seldom undertook any-
thing of consequence without first consulting the president, yet
from this time they were the ostensible source of all power
and authority, and the president ceased taking the initiative, as
he had done up to this time.
The commissioners, being men of consequence and appointed
to their present position largely because of their personal rela-
tions with the president, were disposed from the outset to look
upon their duties as mainly supervisory. For the first two
years they served without pay.* They had no regular time
for meeting, but came together as the business seemed to re-
quire and as the state of the roads permitted. At the outset
the meetings did not average more than one a month. The
first sale of lots was preceded only by a little more than
1 Jefferson’s notes on the residence bill. State Department, D.C.,
Papers. Potomac Flats Case, Vol. 7, p. 2155.
2 Origin of the Building Regulations. Appleton P. Clark, Jr.
Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 4.
3In January, 1793, an allowance of $1000 was given to each com-
missioner to defray expenses incurred in the discharge of his official
duties during his services which up to that time had lasted about two
years. From that date a salary of $1600 per year was fixed as the
compensation of each member of the board. Proceedings of Com-
missioners, March 4, 1793.
164 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
three months by the final agréement with the property holders,
so that necessarily up to June 30, 1791, not much had been
done in the way of the actual work of city building. It is
probable with the exception of the removal of trees in order
to enable the surveyors to run their lines over a locality that
was at that time said to be quite thickly wooded, but few
changes had been made in the appearance of the farms
or plantations that comprised the site of the federal city.
One of the property holders, Daniel Carroll of Duddington,
who was living in his farmhouse near Greenleaf’s Point, began
the erection of a house south of the site of the capitol, and it
was far enough advanced so that “in 1790 the cellar of his
house was walled up and stood the winter.” It is evident he
started the building soon after Washington’s visit to the
locality in the fall of 1790.1
To the owners of land within the chosen area, the signs of the
coming change were first visible, and they early became familiar
with a phase of the situation that for the time made the city
a centre of speculative activity. The names of some of the
newcomers are to be found by comparing the list of those
who signed the agreement March 30, with those of June 30
who executed deeds of trust. The name of Samuel Blodgett,
who became a prominent figure in the affairs of the city during
the first few years is not to be found in either list as he and other
adventurers, as they were called, acquired their holdings later on.
The shadow of coming events and of the changes that were
to transform a farming region into a city that was to be the
governmental centre of the United States must have been more
apparent in Georgetown than in any portion of the District, for
that place was from the beginning a base of supplies for the city
builders. Here was the office of the surveying force.”
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Jan. 8, 1792.
? Statement of Isaac Briggs, Jan. 12, 1793. ‘‘When we [referring
to Ellicott] were running the bounding lines of the territory of Co-
lumbia, being obliged to transact (as I have understood) the general
business of his office in Georgetown.’’ Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 184, Vol. 2.
In the same volume, pp. 139-142, is an affidavit of L’Enfant and a
letter of Samuel Davidson relative to the papers taken from L’ Enfant’s
office which indicate that it was located in Georgetown.
. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 165
For the first five years the office of the commissioners re-
mained in the town west of Rock Creek, and there is also where
they lived. As early as the spring of 1792, the commissioners
had concluded to erect a building for their use “near the place
called the Church Square,” 1 where the patent office building
now stands. But this was not done. The location of the office
in Georgetown is unknown. ‘Tradition has fixed upon the two-
story structure at 3049 M Street as the headquarters of the sur-
veying department of the city in the year 1791, and a tablet
was placed on the walls in the year 1899 by the Hiram Ripley
Society, D. A. R., bearing the inscription “Gen. Washington’s
headquarters while surveying the city of Washington in 1791.”
A similar indefiniteness exists in regard to the location of the
commissioner’s office after its removal to Washington in the
year 1796.
At the outset both the president and the commissioners
looked to Major L’Enfant, not only to prepare the plan of the
city, but also to design the public buildings and in general to
have charge of all building.”
As it was known that the clay in the locality was excellent
for brick, by the first of October gangs of men were employed
in getting out this material for building in the vicinity of the
two public buildings and later on kilns were erected there where
the brick used in those structures was made.
While the commissioners were getting ready to begin the
erection of the public buildings, an incident occurred, slight in
itself, but which in its development involved the issue of the
resignation either of the commissioners or of L’Enfant, and led
1 Letter of Daniel Carroll, dated April 16, 1792, to a correspondent
whose name has not been preserved. State Department, D.C., Papers.
2 The commissioners adopted a resolution instructing L’Enfant ‘‘to
employ on the first Monday of October, 150 laborers to throw up clay
at the president’s house and the house of congress and in doing such
other work connected with the post road and the public buildings as
he shall think proper to have immediately executed.”
Proceedings of the Commissioners, Sept. 24, 1791. Two days after
the close of the public sale of lots on October 21, the commissioners in-
formed Washington that they ‘‘have requested Major L’Enfant to
prepare a draft of the public buildings for your inspection.”
166 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
finally to the separation of the latter from the affairs of the
city. It seems that Daniel Carroll of Duddington had resumed
during the season the building of his new house, which was on
the square bounded by E and F streets and 2d Street and
New Jersey Avenue, S. E. Just before L’Enfant went to Phila-
delphia the previous August to lay the plan of the city before
the president, he ran the lines of New Jersey Avenue. It was
found that the Carroll house extended into the avenue some seven
feet. Perhaps the owner was informed and perhaps that was
not considered essential by the man in charge of laying out the
city, and in his opinion subject to no authority but that of the
president, and in the last resort not willing to yield to that.
At any rate, on the 17th of November, 1791, the walls of the
house were pulled down under the direction of Isaac Roberdeau
and Benjamin Ellicott, members of L’Enfant’s corps of sur-
veyors. This was done in spite of the commands from the
commissioners to desist, and also in spite of an injunction from
the chancellor of Maryland which, however, for some reason was
not served.
The story of the stormy episode of the Carroll house is told
fully in the proceedings and letter books of the commissioners
and in Washington’s letters. The latter wrote both to L’En-
fant and to Daniel Carroll proposing an accommodation. As
Mr. Carroll’s house was begun before the federal district was
fixed upon and it could therefore furnish no precedent, Wash-
ington’s suggestion was that either the house could be taken
down and erected again without cost to the owner or be allowed
to stand for six years and then removed without compensation
to the owner. But before the letters were received L’Enfant
had taken action and the house was down.
Washington above all wanted to avoid the scandal of dis-
agreements among those in charge of the city affairs, as it
would only supply material to a vigilant opposition. In addi-
tion he recognized that the separation of L’Enfant from the
business would be “a serious misfortune. At the same time,”
as he informs Jefferson, “he [L’Enfant] must know there is a
line beyond which he will not be suffered to go. Whether it is
_ THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 167
zeal — an impetuous temper, or other motive that leads him
into such blameable conduct I will not take upon me to decide,
but be it what it will, it must be checked or we shall have no
commissioners.” In a letter to the commissioners about the
same date Washington advises patience with L’Enfant and
adds, “I know not where another is to be found who could
supply his place.”
The calm mediation of Washington and the great personal
respect which he inspired no doubt had an influence upon both
parties to the controversy ; that is, the commissioners and L’En-
fant, while Mr. Carroll, who had suffered an actual loss, was
solaced by the assurance of ample restitution, which was duly
made.! Atany ratea sort of armed truce was arranged, for it
was realized that in addition to the injury to the good name
of the enterprise by carrying the controversy to extremes, there
was also the consideration of the preparations for bringing out
an engraved plan of the city and the completion of the plans of
the public buildings, both of which were in L’Enfant’s hands. At
first it was designed to have the map in readiness, so that the
second sale of lots could be held in the coming spring, but as
will be seen as the narrative proceeds, L’Enfant either wilfully
or constitutionally would or could not act with even reasonable
expedition. As his associate, Andrew Ellicott, observed, “‘ The
Major has both a lively fancy and decision, but unfortunately
no system.” ?
A little more than a month after the sale of lots had been
1The sum of $4500 was paid to Daniel Carroll on this account,
June 4, 1792. Proceedings of the Commissioners.
2 Andrew Ellicott to the Commissioners, Feb. 23, 1792. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book. With amore personal touch and an approach to
a description of the appearance of L’Enfant which is of special value
owing to the lack of any portrait, Ellicott in the course of a letter
written in the early days of his association with L’Enfant informs
his wife, living in Philadelphia, that he expects L’Enfant ‘will pay
you a visit in my name some time next week. He is a most worthy
French gentleman, and though not one of the most handsome of men,
he is from his good breeding and native politeness a first-rate favorito
among the ladies.’’ Ellicott to his wife, dated Surveyors’ Camp,
State of Virginia, June 26, 1791. Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 174, Vol. 2.
168 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
closed, Jefferson wrote to Ellicott, desiring to have “his private
opinion of the earliest time at which this portion of the work can
be completed.” !
Jefferson referred to a proposal to have all the squares south
of Pennsylvania Avenue, between Rock Creek and the Eastern
Branch, first laid off, and as the surveys were completed, the lines
were furnished the engravers so that the work of preparing the
city map might be hastened in readiness for asale of lots to be held
as soon as possible. In the meantime, and on the 13th of De-
cember, 1791, the president sent to congress “the plan of the
city,” but it is difficult to determine which one of the several
copies it is evident L’Enfant had drawn. In an undated
statement ? L’Enfant asserts that a number of drawing copies
had been made without his knowledge from “the particular
plan and copperplates by me prepared for engraving in the
month of August, 1791 in Philadelphia . . . and lodged as in
the best place of safety in the hands of the president. But
although thus protected,” he adds, “a number of drawing copies
had been made therefrom without my knowledge such as were
in both houses of congress hanging on the walls in December,
1791; others were sent to Europe viz. to Portugal and even to
Petersburg in Russia. The commissioners also by means of an
agent at Philadelphia, in a surreptitious way procured the afore-
said plan for engraving.”
This statement is confused, as was sometimes the case when
L’Enfant attempted to express himself in English. He probably
referred to the copies of the plan as engraved in October, 1792,
and known as the Philadelphia engraved plan, as the ones that
were sent to Europe.
As Washington subsequently explained, the plan was sent to
congress “as matter of information, and the return of it
requested: that it remained as before under the control of the
executive,” that afterwards “several errors were discovered
and corrected, many alterations made, and the appropriations,
1 Jefferson to Ellicott, Philadelphia, Nov. 21, 1791. Coll. Hist.
Soe., p. 176, Vol. 2.
2 Coll. Hist. Soce., p. 148, Vol. 2.
_ THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 169
except as to the capitol and the president’s house, struck out
under that authority before it was sent to the engraver, intend-
ing that his work and the promulgation thereof were to give it
the final and regulating stamp.” !
The winter of 1791-1792 was almost passed before apparently it
was realized that there was no hope of any progress with L’En-
fant in charge except along the lines of his own choice. He had
evidently not changed his mind about the advisability of having
the plan of the city engraved, and while it seems to have been
supposed that preparations to that end were going on in Phila-
delphia, yet the last month of winter had almost passed before the
actual condition was realized and it was discovered that no
progress in the engraving was being made.
L’Enfant, in spite of the strained relations with the commis-
sioners growing out of the Carroll house episode, continued in
charge of the work in the city. It was during the early portion
of the winter that he went to Acquia, Va., and concluded a bar-
gain with George Brent for the purchase of the near-by Higginston
Island in the Potomac with its quarry of sandstone. For this
property of twelve acres the sum of $3192 was paid, and from
there and the stone quarries on Acquia Creek, leased for a period
of ten years from George Gibson of Dumfries, the sandstone
was taken which was used in the outer walls of the capitol and
the president’s house and for the stone work in the brick build-
ings for the use of the executive departments.
Then again in January, 1792, L’Enfant, through his assistant
Roberdeau, gave orders for beginning the digging of the founda-
tions for the capitol, which, however, were countermanded by
the commissioners, as they naturally thought they should be
consulted as to the exact location of that structure.
At this time the Maryland legislature, by an enactment of
Dec. 19, 1791, placed on the statute books the first of a series of
laws relating to the District; for, in accordance with the organic
law, that body remained the law-making power for the Mary-
land portion of the District “until Congress shall by law other-
1 Washington to the Commissioners, Feb. 20, 1797. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book.
170 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
wise provide,” ! which it did by the law of Feb. 27, 1801. This
Maryland act was comprehensive. It gave legal force to the
bounds of the District and of the city and gave authority to
acquire the lands within the city belonging to minors, persons
absent from the state, married women and insane; also allowed
foreigners to hold real property, and established an office for the
recording of deeds, giving the commissioners authority to ap-
point a clerk to be in charge of the office. Up to that time the
place of record for land transfer in the territory covered by the
city was the land office of Prince George County at Marlboro,
while the residents of Georgetown and of the section of the
District within the bounds of Montgomery County went to the
county seat at Rockville and the residents of the Virginia part
of the territory had recourse to Alexandria, the county seat
of Fairfax County. The commissioners appointed their clerk,
John M. Gantt, to be the clerk for recording land deeds, and he
continued to perform the duties of both offices until Nov. 1,
1793, when Thomas Johnson, Jr., became the clerk of the board
of commissioners or, as he came to sign his name, secretary.”
The Maryland legislature also in this act provided a lien law
“for the encouragement of master builders,’ so as to make
the amounts due on written contracts for building a lien on
the property. Certain powers of a minor legislative character
were conferred on the commissioners, such as making building
regulations, the licensing of the building of wharves and the
granting of liquor licenses. In view probably of the expected
growth of the population, some of the powers enjoyed only by
incorporated towns under the Maryland system were conferred
on the commissioners, but in other respects the government of
the District, while it continued under the Maryland legislature,
resembled closely that of towns not incorporated but merely
laid out and where practically all the governmental functions
were centred in the county authorities. The taxes were
1 Act of July 16, 1790.
2It is supposed that Mr. Johnson was the son of Commissioner
Johnson, but there is not enough known about him to make a positive
assertion of that sort. Mr. Johnson subsequently became the first
postmaster of the city when the office was established in June 24, 1796.
. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 171
assessed and collected in the Maryland portion of the District
by the authorities of Montgomery and Prince George counties,
in whose hands were also the administration of justice, the care
of roads, ete.
At the same session of the Maryland legislature the George-
town Bridge Company, with an authorized capital of about one
million dollars, was incorporated to erect a toll bridge over the
Potomac River at or near Georgetown. The site finally selected
was near the Little Falls. It is reasonable to suppose from the
amount of capital stock authorized that the original purpose
of the incorporators was to carry out L’Enfant’s suggestion
and build a bridge at the Three Sisters, just north of the present
Aqueduct Bridge. At that time the enterprise did not receive
sufficient encouragement to make even a beginning, much less
to warrant the erection of such a costly structure as would have
been required at that location. It is interesting to note as
marking the first appearance of Samuel Blodgett on the scene
of the new city that his name appears among the incorporators,
the four others being leading Georgetown men, as follows:
Robert Peter, William Deakins, Jr., James M. Lingan and Uriah
Forrest.
About a month earlier than this session of the Maryland
legislature Washington received letters from Thomas Johnson
and Dr. David Stuart, commissioners of the city, giving him
information in regard to agricultural conditions in and about
the District.
Both letters are in answer to requests from Washington for
such information. There is nothing to indicate the use Wash-
ington made of the facts, if he used them at all. As a con-
temporary view of the values of the farm lands in the locality
and their condition, the letters are highly interesting. Under
date of Frederick, Md., Nov. 10, 1791, Mr. Johnson states that
the land in Montgomery County, in general, is what may be
called of a middling or rather inferior quality. The course
pursued commonly in the state is to cultivate the land the first
two years in tobacco, the third in Indian corn and then sowed
1 Washington’s Letter Book.
174 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
lost,” writes Washington to L’Enfant, under date of February
28, “by the compliment which was intended to be paid you in
depending alone upon your plans for the public buildings
instead of advertising a premium to the person who should
present the best.” ?
When L’Enfant came to Philadelphia the latter part of
December, 1791, Washington pressed him to get the plan
ready for engraving. He waited patiently for some six weeks
and then directed Ellicott, who was evidently at his home in
that city at that season of suspension of out-of-door operations
in the new city, to prepare the plan for the engraver.”
L’Enfant’s account of this circumstance is to be found in a
letter written to Lear for the president’s information about
the time he was relieved by Ellicott. Under date of Feb. 17,
1792, he writes that “I daily attended the progress of the busi-
ness in all its stages [preparing the map for engraving] until
Mr. Andrew Ellicott gave me to understand that he was ordered
by Mr. Jefferson to attend to that business.” He adds that he
gave himself no more concern about the matter “being confi-
dent,” he states with his usual egotism, “that the meaning of
Mr. Jefferson’s order to Mr. Ellicott could not be to publish
the plan without my knowledge or concurrence and convinced
that it would not be completely finished without recourse to the
larger map in my possession.” ®
He does not refer to the request made by Mr. Ellicott for the
larger plan which he refused,* but he does state that in the
1“ Major L’Enfant had no plans prepared for the Capitol or govern-
ment house. He said he had them in his head.”’ Jefferson to Com-
missioner Johnson, March 8, 1792. Jefferson Papers.
? Washington to the Commissioners, March 6, 1792. Washing-
ton’s Letter Book, Vol. XI.
3 L’Enfant to Lear. Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 144, Vol. 2.
‘ Ellicott informed the ‘commissioners that in preparing the plan
for engraving, in which he had the aid of his brother: ‘‘We met with
difficulties of a very serious nature. Major L’Enfant refused us the
use of the original. What his motive was, God knows. The plan
which we have furnished, I believe, will be found to answer the ground
better than the large one in the Major’s hands.” Andrew Ellicott
to the Commissioners, Feb. 23, 1792. Commissioners’ Letter Book.
_THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 175
course of a few days he went to the engravers to see how far
the draft of the plan was advanced, “and to my great surprise
found it in the state in which it now is, most unmercifully
spoiled and altered from the original plan to a degree indeed
evidently tending to disgrace me.’ He also adds in a post-
script that he had that day sent to Mr. Ellicott “for the plan
together with other drafts necessary for me to redress the
error, notwithstanding his proceeding I was inclined to do, to
accelerate the engraving.”” But Ellicott declined to allow the
drawing to go to L’Enfant, probably fearing that would be the
last sight of it for him.
At this distance of time it is perhaps impossible to hold the
scales justly in weighing the merits of such a character as
L’Enfant. It is quite apparent, however, that he was deter-
mined on his own way, and, mingled with the persistency of an
egoist, was the serious lack of system and steadiness in con-
tinued effort. He was probably incapable by nature of fol-
lowing with constancy a certain given course and was beset
and led astray by the largeness and variety of his conceptions
as well as his firm conviction of the superiority of his ideas.
“Every mode has been tried,” writes Washington to L’Enfant,
Feb. 28, 1792, “to accommodate your wishes on this principle,
except changing the Commissioners (for commissioners there
must be and under their direction the public buildings must be
carried on or the law will be violated).”’!
It was L’Enfant’s haughty ultimatum in these last days of
February that either the commissioners must be dismissed
or that he be allowed to act independently. But as Jefferson
observed in a letter to George Walker, who had evidently
gone on to Philadelphia to do what he could for L’Enfant as
1 Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI. From the letter of February
27 of Jefferson to L’Enfant, referring to a letter from L’ Enfant of the day
before, in which Jefferson states ‘‘it is understood that you absolutely
decline acting under the authority of the present Commissioners’’
(Coll. Hist. Soe., p. 150, Vol. 2), it is evident that L’Enfant’s connec-
tion with the city was terminated at that date. If he had served a
few days longer, he would have completed a year from the time he
arrived in Georgetown and began his study of the site of the city.
176 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
representing himself and other property holders friendly to
L’Enfant, “the latter being impossible under the law and the
former too arrogant to be answered, he was notified that his
services were at an end.” “Measures will be taken,” he
adds, “to procure plans for the public buildings in which busi-
ness five months have been lost by a dependence on Major
L’Enfant.”’ !
From the time the business of having a plan prepared for
the engraver was placed in the hands of Ellicott until its
completion and the engraver began its execution three weeks
elapsed.”
From that drawing the first engraved map of the city was
made. It is quite clear from the time taken by Ellicott to get
the plan in readiness for the engraver as well as the contempo-
rary references to the matter and a comparison of the engraved
plan with the existing manuscript plan of L’Enfant, that Elli-
cott devised no new scheme. He rather filled in some of the
lacking details in L’Enfant’s drawing which was at the engravers,
and which like the plan that has been preserved was not com-
pletely finished.2 As Washington stated in a letter to the
commissioners, Feb. 20, 1797, “had it not been for the materials
which he [Ellicott] happened to possess, it is probable that no
engraving from L’Enfant’s draughts would have been exhibited
to the public.” And adds, “that many alterations have been
1 Jefferson to George Walker, March 1, 1792. Jefferson Papers.
Under date of Feb. 26, 1792, Dr. Stuart wrote to Washington about
L’Enfant and the efforts made by the commissioners to continue him in
the service not only on account of advancing the work of the city, but
out of respect ‘“‘to your good opinion of him. But all conciliatory
treatment,’’ he adds, ‘‘only tended to heighten the ideas of his own
importance and to increase his natural perversity.”
2? Washington to the Commissioners, Philadelphia, March 6, 1792.
Washington’s Letter Book, Vol. XI. ‘‘The matter was put into Mr.
Ellicott’s hand to prepare about three weeks ago. He has prepared it.”
3’ Andrew Ellicott, under date of Feb. 23, 1795, wrote to Dr. William
Thornton (J. Henley Smith Papers, Library of Congress), stating he
intended to prepare an astronomical paper for the American Phil-
osophic Society in which he will mention the city of Washington, and
‘the method pursued in executing that part of the plan in which I have
been concerned will be explained.”
- a kode Boies z
aS SX Gp me a
AE the)
CNT)" OF W ISAINGTON
in the District of Columbia
rill Met tee Vas the frcrwa wecrel ifs al f 4 ie at eere ted
et of the -—
ne es
BOR aes
Oe AME RIC. 4
sei,
ee ay
IIS M7
“=
ut
Pa | | ie | lige fa 1.
a tent as anne
THe PLAN OF THE CITY.
. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 177
made from L’Enfant’s plan by Major Ellicott with the appro-
bation of the president.”
The most severe contemporary criticism was made by L’Enfant
himself who in his letter to Lear, of Feb. 17, 1792, describes the
drawing, then a few days out of his hands, from which the
engraved plan was being made, “as unmercifully spoiled and
altered from the original plan.”’ Later on, he is more moderate;
as for instance in his memorial to congress of Dec. 7, 1800,
he states that “the engraved plan ? is agreeable to the original
lines of the grand divisions of the city, that it is correct with
respect to the distribution of the sites of the capitol, judiciary,
and the president’s house, and that it is also correct in the
course of the canal.’’ In the same document he asserts “my
plan” was procured and caused “to be engraved at Phila-
delphia,” and also that the only alterations were those made by
himself as early as August, 1791.
It cannot be demonstrated that the existing manuscript plan
bearing the name of L’Enfant is the drawing referred to by
Ellicott as “the original.” It seems probable, however, that the
drawing which was exhibited to the property owners on June 30,
1791, before any differences had arisen with L’Enfant, is the one
spoken of as the “original” or “Jarge”’ plan. As L’Enfant, him-
self says in a letter previously quoted, that was not the plan sent
to congress, the latter having been prepared from one which he
had made for the engraver. After the day in December when
the plan was sent to congress there are several references to
this “large” plan, all of which shows that it was then safely
held in Major L’Enfant’s custody.
Then when the break came, L’Enfant claims that his papers
1That these were minor alterations is evident from the summary
given in a memorial of landowners to the president, dated Nov. 10,
1798, and in a letter of the commissioners, dated March 23, 1802.
Doe. No. 157, 7th Cong., Ist Sess. American State Papers. Miscel-
laneous, pp. 330-336, Vol. 1. A comparison of L’Enfant’s plan and
the engraved plan is the best guide now available and shows that the
‘alterations’? and ‘‘changes’’ spoken of in contemporary accounts
related to details of the general scheme so rilliantly conceived by
L’Enfant and not to any essential feature of that scheme.
2 Coll. Hist. Soe., p. 99, Vol. 2.
VOL. I-——-N
178 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
at the new city were taken possession of by the commissioners
while he was absent and that he never recovered any part of
them excepting “one of the proposed plan of the city of Washing-
ton which he received from Mr. Davidson.”
A doubt as to the identity of the existing manuscript plan
with the “large’’ plan is, however, created by a statement in the
proceedings of the commissioners, Oct. 13, 1792, that “the square
number 128 in the original plan of the city of Washington, now
in the hands of Major L’Enfant, is designated by number 160
in the engraved plan now in circulation.” But squares in the
existing L’Enfant manuscript plan are without numbers.
The streets and avenues are without names or numbers in the
L’Enfant plan, while they are to be found in the engraved plan
and precisely the same as those of to-day. Another curious
thing is that the bridges at the Three Sisters and at the ends
of Pennsylvania Avenue and East Capitol Street, as proposed
by L’Enfant, are not indicated on his existing manuscript
map, but they are on the engraved map.”
L’Enfant’s separation from the affairs of the city, although
really forced by his “untoward disposition,’ as Washington
phrased it, may be said to mark the beginning of the oppo-
sition to the commissioners which continued to be a factor
in the administration of the city. No doubt, two parties
would have arisen in any event, but this occurrence served
1 Affidavit of L’Enfant, February, 1803. Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 146, Vol. 2.
Also (p. 141, the same) a sworn statement of Samuel Davidson, one of
the attending property holders, on the occasion referred to, dated
Jan. 16, 1802, in which he states that ‘‘the first plan exhibited by
General Washington,”’ and said to have come from a trunk containing
Major L’Enfant’s papers, was placed in his care, ‘‘ which plan I did about
two or three years ago deliver into Major L’Enfant’s own hand equally
as safe as when first left with me.”’
* There is trace of one of the L’Enfant plans to be found in an entry
in the proceedings of the commissioners of Dec. 5, 1796, as follows,
“‘Letter of the 1st inst. received from the president of the United
States with a plan of the city of Washington drawn by Major L’En-
fant.” As Washington in the following March went out of office, it
is probable that he was at that time making a disposition of the papers
that had accumulated, and in pursuance of such a policy he forwarded
this map to the commissioners as the proper custodians.
. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 179
as a starting-point. The news of L’Enfant’s dismissal prob-
ably did not reach the city, or at least was not officially
made known, until about the middle of March.! In the
meantime a letter had been prepared which was forwarded
by Uriah Forrest, expressing to L’Enfant the concern of
the property holders of a prospect of the city’s losing the
benefit of his services. It was signed by all the property
holders, with two exceptions, and naturally these two were
Daniel Carroll of Duddington and his relative, Notley Young.
The hope was expressed that an adjustment would be reached.
The phrases used in this letter were general, but appreciative of
“the taste and judgment” displayed by L’Enfant in his work
in the city, and the action may be construed as one of courtesy
and kindly feeling on the part of some of the signers at least
rather than a partisan feeling against the commissioners.”
The character of L’Enfant’s following is to some extent out-
lined in a letter of Dr. Stuart to Washington, dated Feb. 26,
1792, when he states that L’Enfant’s partisans are “Mr.
Roberdeau, his deputy, and Messrs. Peter, Walker and David-
son, who took the ground that L’Enfant had the president’s
support in the contention and that he was not subject to the
commissioners.”
Dr. Stuart adds that Uriah Forrest, at that time mayor of
Georgetown, was at the bottom of most of the confusion.
He concludes with the following estimate of the practical
results of L’Enfant’s supreme control in the affairs of the city,
which, in view of his course in other relations, was prophetic.
“Tf L’Enfant is made independent of the commissioners,
then the Treasury of the Union will not be adequate to the
expense incurred.” In this letter is a positive assurance that
the commissioners will resign if L’Enfant is not checked. It
was not only the alternative of losing the services of L’Enfant
or choosing a new board of commissioners that confronted
Washington, at this time, but the effect upon the entire enter-
prise of a public ventilation of the differences.
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, March 13, 1792.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 136, Vol. 2.
180 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
This latter phase Washington kept constantly in mind, and
so he hastened to write to the commissioners about the com-
pensation proper to be paid to L’Enfant, for he had been en-
gaged without any understanding of that sort. It may also be
stated that in this letter, but incidentally of course, Washington
again gives to L’Enfant the credit of the authorship of the plan
of the city. “The plan of the city,” he writes, “having met
universal applause (as far as my information goes), and Major
L’Enfant having become a very discontented man, it was
thought that less than from $2500 to $3000 would not be proper
to offer him for his services — instead of this, suppose 500 guineas
and a lot in a good part of the city was to be substituted.” 4
To what extent the display of interest in L’Enfant on the part
of the property holders was due to regard for him and belief in
his talents, and not to mere selfish considerations, it is, of course,
impossible to determine. It is quite evident that L’ Enfant had
the faculty of inspiring those with whom he came in contact
with admiration for his ability and taste. Washington held
him in high esteem and parted with him with reluctance.
Alexander Hamilton asked him to prepare “the devises for the
coin,” which L’Enfant declined as an “interfering proposal,”
to the great work he had undertaken of planning a capital
city.2 About the time L’Enfant’s connection with the city came
1 Washington to David Stuart, March 8, 1792. Washington’s
Letter Book, Vol. XI. In the further correspondence it came out that
L’Enfant, during the year of his service, had received from the city
funds $600 in addition to his expenses. The commissioners offered
him 500 guineas and the choice of a lot, both of which he very char-
acteristically declined. L’Enfant does not again directly appear in
connection with the affairs of the city until the year 1800, when he
presented a claim to congress for compensation for his services. The
business dragged along, as is common in such cases, and finally, in the
year 1810,an act was passed under the terms of which L’Enfant re-
ceived $1394.20. In addition, a balance of $200 due on a lot purchased
by L’Enfant was paid from the city funds, thus making a total of a
little over $2000 that came to the designer of the plan of Washington
for his work for the city.
* Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 128, Vol. 2. Hamilton to L’Enfant, May 24,
1791. Also p. 86 of same, where L’Enfant in a memorial to congress
refers to this proposal from the secretary of the treasury and his rea-
sons for declining it.
- THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 181
to an end, Robert Morris had completed the purchase of an
entire square of ground in Philadelphia, where he planned to
erect a residence for his own use. He gave the commission
to build the house to L’Enfant, and apparently left him to his
own devices.
Three years elapsed, and the roof was not on the house.
“Had you executed my intentions instead of your own,”
writes Morris, whose patience and, what was still more serious,
whose money was exhausted, “my family would have inhabited
the house instead of being liable to be turned out of doors.” !
The house was never finished, —a result not entirely due to the
elaborateness and expense of the plans and the methods of the
architect. While Morris, in his statement of his affairs pre-
pared after the crash, asserts that he was still solvent in 1792, it
is debated by one of his biographers whether he was ever
solvent.?
““A much more magnificent house than I ever intend to have
built,” is Morris’s comment in his account of his property.
The house was built of brick and white marble. Its elevation
shows a design harmonious in proportion and dignified and
pleasing. Like the Congress House in New York City, it
exhibits the taste as well as skill of the designer.’
In addition to the Morris house, the largest enterprise of the
sort up to that time attempted in the country, L’Enfant was
called upon a few months after he had left the federal city
1 Robert Morris, Patriot and Financier. Ellis Paxon Oberholzer.
New York, 1903.
2 The Financier and the Finances of the Revolution. W.E.Sumner.
3A curious light on the relations between Robert Morris and his
architect is afforded by Morris’s comment in his statement of his affairs,
an undated document, published apparently about the year 1800,
which is as follows: ‘‘C. P. L’Enfant. Thesum at his debit, $5437.13
will, I suppose, be considered as paid on account of his services: the
account of which he has not rendered; and various circumstances
render me little solicitous on the score of his services. But he lent
me thirteen shares of bank stock disinterestedly, and on this point I
feel the greatest anxiety that he should get the same number of shares
with the dividends, for the want of which he has suffered great dis-
tress, and as the best means I could devise, he is included in the Genesee
assignment.”’
182 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
work to become the engineér in an enterprise that sought to
establish at the falls of the Passaic, where the modern manu-
facturing centre of Patterson is located, the manufacturing
metropolis of the United States. Alexander Hamilton and
others prominent in the affairs of the day became interested,
and it was largely through Hamilton’s influence that L’Enfant’s
services were secured. A charter of incorporation was obtained
from the New Jersey legislature, as well as a subscription from
that state to the stock of the company. It may be noted that
the charter which was said to have been drawn by Hamilton
conferred upon the company the powers of a city charter with
jurisdiction over a tract of six square miles. As there is a
probability pointing to Hamilton as the author of the territo-
rial jurisdiction feature of the federal district, his recurrence
to the same idea in this enterprise may be looked upon as
interesting, if not quite up to the importance of corroborative
evidence.
The plan devised by L’Enfant was not alone for the building
of the manufacturing plant, but also for the laying out of the
town and for a magnificent road connecting the new town with
Newark, N.J. There was to be in the new centre a splendid
system of avenues radiating from the central business point
of the town. In addition the designer proposed to divert the
Passaic River into a fine aqueduct of stone supported on ma-
sonry arches and extending a distance of seven miles. As all
this was planned for a company with only $243,000 capital,
these elaborate projects naturally did not get beyond the paper
stage. In July, 1792, he began his service with this company,
and in September, 1793, he resigned, as the funds were totally
inadequate to carry out such plans; but that circumstance
did not trouble L’Enfant. The plans were modified after
L’Enfant’s retirement, but the enterprise even then could not
be set going, and it was soon abandoned.!
The following spring L’Enfant was placed in charge of erect-
1 History of New Jersey. Thomas Gordon. Trenton, 1834. The
Founding of Patterson. William Nelson. N.J. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d
Series, Vol. 7.
THE DIFFICULTIES WITH L’ENFANT 183
ing fortifications at Mud Island in the Delaware River below
Philadelphia, known as Fort Mifflin, which was one of the largest
undertakings in the scheme for coast defences begun in the
year 1794.1 After the destruction of the public buildings by
the British in Washington in the summer of 1814, he was
placed in charge of the work of making Fort Washington a
place of defence, which was his last professional engagement.”
L’Enfant spent the last years as a dependent of the Digges
family. He died at Green Hill, the home of William Dudley
Digges, Prince George County, Md., a short distance beyond
the bounds of the District, June 14, 1825. His body was
buried in the family lot on the farm, and on the 27th of April,
1909, was disinterred, and on the following day removed to
Arlington after services in the presence of a distinguished
audience held in the rotunda of the capitol. The cost of
the removal and the erection of a monument were defrayed by
an appropriation made by congress.
1 American State Papers. Military Affairs, Vol. i, p. 82.
2In an obituary notice of L’Enfant in the Intelligencer, June 25,
1825, it is stated in reference to his connection with the Fort Washing-
ton work, ‘‘He did not remain in authority to finish this work, which,
being carried on by him, too extravagantly, it is believed, was put in
charge of another officer.”
CHAPTER VIII
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING
“A MAN of uncommon talents in his way and of a more
placid temper” — the comparison having reference to L’En-
fant — was Washington’s opinion of Andrew Ellicott in the
fall of 1791. In connection with his brother, Benjamin Ellicott,
he had done much surveying work in the new city, and it was
what they had mapped out from their surveys that was used
in preparing for the engraver L’Enfant’s incomplete drawing.
The actual survey was not completed until 1795, so that neither
L’Enfant’s manuscript plan nor the engraved plan was fitted
to the ground. If the necessity had not existed of disposing
of the city’s interest in the lots, and if it had not been thought
a map would aid the sales, it is doubtful if the engraving would
have been done at such an early stage.
By the drawing as completed early in March, 1792, the gen-
eral scheme of the plan of the city was defined and officially
determined, so that at this day either of these plans is recog-
nized as a good general representation of the city. The squares
were not numbered in the L’Enfant plan, or at least in the one
that has been preserved, and also some portions of it were not
completely defined. A comparison of the engraved plan, where
such details were supplied, with one based on an actual survey
shows squares, lacking in the former, which have been inserted
to provide for ground in excess of the designated squares.
This circumstance explains the use of such terms as square
“east of square No. —”’ or square “south of square No.—”’ ete.
One drawing was sent to Boston to be engraved, and proofs
were received in Philadelphia in July. Then it was found the
soundings of the Potomac and the Eastern Branch were not on
the map, and Ellicott was told to supply them, and they were
inserted in the Philadelphia plate. The map engraved at
184
. PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 185
Boston was much smaller than the Philadelphia map and is
without the water soundings. It was used at the sale of lots
in October, 1792, but owing to these two circumstances only a
small number was struck off. The map engraved in Phila-
delphia, but not received in the new city until December, 1792,
was the one that came into general use, and was regarded as
the authoritative scheme of the city.
On this engraved map the “observations explanatory of
the plan” as found on L’Enfant’s map were retained, while
L’Enfant’s name and the “references”? were omitted. The
latter outlined in part the elaborate ideas of L’Enfant in pro-
viding such features as spaces for fountains, for a national
church, for educational institutions, for buildings to be erected
by each state and for the treatment of East Capitol Street with
an arcade on each side bordered with shops. Only two reserva-
tions were designated on the engraved plan, namely, for the
capitol and for the president’s house, but the walk, or, as it
came to be called, the Mall, was shown, as well as the garden
about the president’s house and also Lafayette Square just as
they appearedon the L’Enfant plan. Of the seventeen reserva-
tions finally declared by proclamation of President Washington,
and with three exceptions still used for public purposes, all but
one are found on the manuscript plan.!
A feature of L’Enfant’s city planning that was early aban-
doned was the space, as shown on the engraved plan, proposed
for a naval column. This memorial was to stand on the banks
of the Potomac and on the ground from 7th Street to the river
and between I and M streets, 5S. W.?
While only two reservations were officially selected, yet it
seemed to be understood from the outset that only a beginning
had been made, and that the L’Enfant plan was finally to be
carried out in its entirety. It is probable L’Enfant, in his
intercourse with the landowners and others, spoke with kin-
1 Potomac Flats Case, Vol. 6, p. 152. Washington’s proclamation
of March 2, 1797, designating the reservations.
2 As early as April, 1793, this space was divided into squares and
lots. Com. Proes., April 3, 1793.
186 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
dling enthusiasm of his design, and more especially of the gener-
ous provision to be made for the uses of the government and
the enhancement to the beauty of the surroundings when all
the selected spaces would be utilized by the erection of public
buildings, and the placing of fountains and statuary. No
doubt the French designer grew eloquent as he pictured the
city with such embellishments intended for the use of the
federal government, while in addition he pointed out on his
plan the sites designed for structures to serve local needs, as a
court-house, markets, a bank and an exchange.
At any rate, whatever the source of such ideas, they became
firmly implanted in the minds of those interested in the city,
as numerous allusions attest. An early illustration of this may
be found in the direction of the commissioners to Ellicott of
Sept. 1, 1792, to divide into lots preparatory to the second sale
squares near “the president’s house, capitol . . . the judiciary,
the markets,” thus giving recognition to at least two reservations
which were not formally designated as such until later years.
It may be noted also that in the above order the term, mall, is
first used in reference to L’Enfant’s walk between the capitol
and the president’s house.
“Ellicott is to go on week after next,” writes Jefferson to the
commissioners, March 6, 1792, “to finish laying off the plan on
the ground and surveying and platting the city.” The im-
portance of zeal and vigor was pointed out, for, as Washington
stated in a letter to Dr. Stuart of about the same date, urging
expedition in the business of the city, that the enemies of the
enterprise say “if inactivity and contractedness mark the
steps of the commissioners, whilst the contrary on the part of
this state [Pennsylvania] is displayed in providing commodious
buildings for Congress, etc., the government will remain where it
now is.” While seeing the obstacles to be overcome, Washing-
ton does not lose the ideal he has for the city, for he tells the
commissioners “that the public buildings in size, form and
elegance should look beyond the present day.” !
1 Washington to David Stuart, Philadelphia, March 8, 1792. Wash-
ington’s Letter Book, No. XI. In the previous fall, Jefferson writing
- PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 187
Now that L’Enfant was not relied upon for plans for the
public buildings, the commissioners by the middle of March
caused advertisements to be inserted in the newspapers, offering
premiums for plans for the capitol building and the president’s
house. But it was realized that an essential to despatch in
such an enterprise was money, and it was apparently foreseen
at that time that reliance upon the proceeds of the sale of lots
would not be justified. For in addition to other circumstances
the property belonging to the public had to share the market
with an equal amount of land in private ownership, so that in
effect the entire 6000 acres within the limits of the city, less
the one third deducted for streets and the few hundred acres
devoted to public uses, came on the market at one time.
It was therefore decided to negotiate a loan on the city
property. It was the evident intention to supplement in this
way the receipts from the sale of lots, but in this particular
disappointment was the only outcome, as was the case so
frequently with other projects of financing in the early days of
city building. The negotiation for the loan was intrusted to
Samuel Blodgett, Jr., who went to Boston for that purpose,
and while there the engraving of the city plan was done under
his direction. But the general financial conditions were found
to be so unfavorable that the loan project was abandoned.
At that early stage such a set-back was not serious, but later
on, when money must be had or all work cease, the financing
phase of the undertaking was the most perplexing and trying
of all the problems that arose.
As this is the first appearance of the name of Samuel Blodgett,
Jr., in the official records of the city, some account of a man
who was one of the most striking figures in the group of the
early promoters of the new centre will not be out of place. He
was born in Goffstown, N.H., Aug. 28, 1757. His father, a
prominent business man and inventor in that state and the
to Washington from Georgetown states, ‘‘We [Madison was with him]
were told in Baltimore that that place was becoming better humored
towards this and found it better that the government should be here
than in Philadelphia.’”’ Washington Papers. Sparks’ Index Series,
Vol. 76, p. 409, Sept. 8, 1791.
188 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
projector of an early canal arotnd Amoskeag Falls, Manchester,
N.H., is described as having superior ingenuity, intelligence
and enterprise and of inventive genius ahead of his times. His
mind was inclined to theory rather than practice and was
interested in what was for the benefit of the community rather
than for his personal advantage."
The traits of character and disposition of the father were
inherited in no small degree by the son who bore his name.
When but nineteen years of age, Samuel Blodgett, Jr., was
commissioned as captain in the New Hampshire militia raised
at the outbreak of the revolution. His company was attached
to Colonel Enoch Poor’s regiment and also to the regiment of
Colonel Nathan Hale. After a service of a little more than
a year, Mr. Blodgett resigned, Dec. 22, 1777.7
After leaving the army, Blodgett went into business in Exeter,
N.H., but the venture not proving to be successful, he went to
Boston, where he engaged in the East India trade and made
money. In the year 1789 he removed to Philadelphia, where
the next year his wife died. The year 1792 proved to be the
most eventful in his history, for it was then that the Insurance
Company of North America was started in Philadelphia, which
was the successor of a tontine association organized by Blodgett.
The insurance company had a capital stock of $600,000 and
was the first joint-stock company in the United States. Blod-
gett was a member of the first board of directors.
He also that year married Rebecca Smith, daughter of Rev.
William Smith, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania,
then twenty years of age and distinguished for her beauty,
wit and vivacity. Previous to the year 1790, Blodgett made
two visits to Europe, and while there examined the organization
and methods of various universities and became an early and
ardent advocate of the establishment at the federal city of a
1 History of Manchester, N.H. C. E. Potter. Manchester, 1856.
The leading facts in the life of Samuel Blodgett, Jr., are derived from
Manchester Historic Association, Vol. 1, Part 2, Manchester, N.H.,
1859.
2 New Hampshire State Papers. Revolutionary Rolls, Vol. 1, p. 554;
also Vol. 3, p. 5.
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 189
national university. To Blodgett the largeness of the
scheme of the federal city must have made a special appeal,
and during the months of preparation in the year 1791,
Philadelphia was the centre. With his associations of a busi-
ness and social nature in that city, Blodgett in all proba-
bility heard a great deal of what was proposed to promote
this enterprise and the various plans which were no doubt
discussed there. It seems likely he attended at the new
city the first sale of lots in the fall of 1791, although there
is no record of his being there.
At any rate, early the next year and on the 12th day of Jan-
uary, 1792, he received a deed of sale from Philip Richard
Fendall of Alexandria, Va., of a tract of land called Jamaica
and comprising 494 acres. This tract lay within the lines of
the city and extended in a broad belt from Dupont Circle in
a northeasterly direction entirely across the city, and over-
lapped the northern bounds. The consideration named in
the deed was 39,520 Mexican silver dollars. By this trans-
action he became the second in the group of large purchasers
who are identified with the city for, as the list of names of the
members of the syndicate represented by Mr. Fendall and
printed in a previous chapter suggests, he was not the first
to avail himself of the opportunities for land speculation so
attractively presented at the federal city.
In the spring of 1792 the commissioners made a. contract
with Leonard Harbaugh of Baltimore for the erection of a
stone bridge across Rock Creek on a line with K Street. This
was in furtherance of L’Enfant’s scheme of providing an outlet
for the post road through the city. In fact, previous to his
dismissal he had made an agreement with property holders
1The earliest suggestion of the founding of such an institution in
this country must be credited to Blodgett, if his account is accepted
of an interview he had with Washington in camp at Cambridge in
1775. Economica. Samuel Blodgett. Appendix, p. 20. Washing-
ton, 1806. As the author of Thoughts on the Increasing Wealth and
National Economy of the United States of America, City of Wash-
ington, printed by Way and Groff, 1801, he ranks as the first Ameri-
can writer on economics.
190 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
west of Rock Creek to donate a street and one half of the abut-
ting lots in consideration of the city building a bridge and a
causeway.
At that time the mouth of Rock Creek formed a broad
opening that began at the base of the ridge west of Rock Creek,
along which M Street passes, and extended as far west almost
as 32d Street.2 In consequence the line of K Street on the
west side passed entirely through water, and in order to make
a bridge available at that point it was necessary to build a
causeway. The latter was done, and was 80 1300 feet and
formed a portion of what is now Water Street in Georgetown.
The ground north of the causeway, as well as that south of
it, was drained, and is now covered with buildings. The
scheme was to have been of advantage both to the public and
to the landowners, and the expense was to be met by the sale
of the land thus reclaimed. As that was not a success, and
the commissioners advanced the money, the brunt of the
failure bore upon the city funds. In addition Harbaugh’s
plan of building arches was defective and the bridge fell down,
so that the city authorities had to suffer that additional loss;
and as if that was not a sufficient train of disasters to attach
to a single phase of the business, they were made the target
of criticisms of those interested in the eastern portion of the
city, who claimed they saw in the entire scheme only the
favoritism of the commissioners towards the section of the city
near to Georgetown.? There were other projects of a char-
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, March 26, 1792. Some of the
subscribers to the agreement were Benjamin Stoddert, Robert Peter,
Uriah Forrest, Will Deakins, Jr., and Philip Barton Key.
2 Rock Creek must have been at that period a large stream, navi-
gable for some distance, for on the 23d of September, 1792, the Mary-
land legislature passed a law forbidding the erection of weirs and
hedges in that stream ‘‘within two miles of the river Potomac’”’ in
order to prevent ‘‘injury of the navigation of said ereek.”’
3 The bridge consisted of three arches of stone, and before the evil
days came upon it was regarded as an important public enterprise.
The corner-stone of the eastern abutment was laid on the national
anniversary in the presence of the commissioners and citizens. There
was a procession and ‘‘a discourse suitable to the occasion,’’ and toasts
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 191
acter to show that the city builders were men of large ideas
and believed the new city was destined in a short time to be a
populous centre. It was proposed to continue the canal of the
Potomac Company from the Little Falls some two miles from
Georgetown into the city. Another waterway connection,
however, was actually begun at this time by a contract made
Sept. 1, 1792, for making a cut fifteen feet wide and twelve feet
deep to join the tide-waters of James Creek and of the Tiber,
a distance of one and one eighth miles in accordance with the
plan of a canal as delineated on the map of the city.
The governmental powers conferred on the commissioners
by the Maryland legislature were further brought into exer-
cise when on the 27th of March, 1792, a license was issued
to William Venable to sell liquor “within the city of Wash-
ington for the term of one year unless suspended or voided.”’ ?
Another function of a city government that was then first
exercised was the opening of streets. Beyond the clearing
were drunk (Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, July 10,
1792). A month later the corner-stone of the western abutment was
laid with similar formality.
1 Jefferson to Thomas Johnson, March 8, 1792. Jefferson Papers.
Washington, whose deep interest in the Potomac Company had not
abated, advised that the practicability of this plan be investigated, and
in a letter to Dr. Stuart about a month later, he says, ‘‘There is such
an intimate connection in political and pecuniary considerations be-
tween the federal district and the inland navigation of the Potomac
that no exertions, in my opinion, should be dispensed with to accom-
plish the latter.’ Washington’s Letter Book. It is worthy of note
that while nothing came of this suggestion, years later the successor
of the Potomac Company extended its canal into the city to the Tiber,
making a water connection similar to what was proposed in the earlier
scheme.
2 Such a function, according to the Maryland custom, was retained
in the county government even in the case of incorporated towns.
As, for example, the mayor’s court of Georgetown, consisting of the
mayor, recorder and aldermen, or any three or more of them, was
given the same jurisdiction as to debts which was conferred on county
justices, and also exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the county
court in all criminal cases except such as affected life. But the power
of granting liquor licenses in Georgetown remained in the county court
until the year 1799, when it was vested in the mayor’s court. Coll.
Hist. Soc., p. 148, Vol. XI.
192 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
of a passageway the commissioners gave very little attention
to street improvement, or perhaps it would be more correct
to say they found as the work of city building went on that
there was no money available for such purposes. However,
after the new post road was surveyed and the ground grubbed
over, as was done in the spring of 1792, then directions were
given to the general overseer of labor to have “a breadth of
two perches done in the middle of the avenue from the presi-
dent’s palace to the capitol.” !
At this time the first of the landowners to realize from the
direct sale of land to the government was paid for ground
taken for public use. This was money due for a part of the
land that had been reserved and where the president’s house,
or the palace, as it continued to be called by the name first
used by L’Enfant, was being built. Under the terms of the
agreement with the proprietors they were to be paid for all
land taken for public purposes, except the streets, at the rate
of twenty-five pounds per acre, from the money derived from
the sale of lots belonging to the public in the vicinity of the
land thus reserved. So on the 6th of June, 1792, Samuel
Davidson received about $548 for eight and a quarter acres,
which transaction must have appeared to the owner as a species
of gratuity on his part to the government, especially when he
realized that what he received for over eight acres was not
more than had been paid at the public sale the previous fall
for a single lot, containing only about an eighth of an acre.
Later on, the commissioners were harassed and at times
put to expense by the efforts of the architects in charge of
erecting the capitol to make changes in the plans. As will be
seen in the case of that building, the design of one man was left
to the execution of others. It was also soon developed that
the plan of the city could be bettered. At least that was Elli-
cott’sidea. At the outset he laid the matter before Washington
shortly after he returned from Philadelphia and entered upon
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, April 14, 1792. This date may
properly be assigned as the birthday of that historic thoroughfare,
Pennsylvania Avenue.
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 193
his work as the principal in the surveying department. He
asked that “an examination be made into the execution of the
general plan of the city by men of known professional abilities.”’
The president, however, declined to take any action on this
request, in accordance with what became his settled policy,
not to interfere with those employed by the commissioners or
under them.!
It is apparent the suggestions of Ellicott or those of others
were taken up by the commissioners, as a month later they sub-
mitted for the approval of the president a number of changes.
The latter, however, refused to sanction them. Exactly what
was proposed can only be gathered from the letter of Jefferson
to the commissioners, giving the decision of the president.?
Jefferson’s summary of the commissioners’ recommendations
is very general, but he speaks of the necessity, in case of their
adoption, of changing all the avenues which point to the capi-
tol, removing the site of that building and of the president’s
house farther away from each other and apparently bringing
the president’s house nearer to Georgetown. A reference in
the correspondence of the commissioners as late as April 9,
1793, indicates that Ellicott also proposed to narrow the mall.
The system adopted by the commissioners of giving only a
general supervision to the business of the city was found after
a year’s experience to be inadequate and instead of occasional
meetings, regular monthly sessions were held beginning in May,
1792. In addition it was deemed advisable to have a super-
intendent to be in charge during the recesses of the board.
For this place Samuel Blodgett, Jr., was recommended by some
of the landowners. Although not a presidential appointment,
but as indicating the close attention given to city affairs by the
president, it is interesting to note that the president made
inquiries of Dr. Stuart about Blodgett as to whether he “is a
man of industry, arrangement and integrity,” adding that
“he had only a slight acquaintance with him.”
1 Jefferson to Ellicott, March 22, 1792. Jefferson Papers.
2 Jefferson to the Commissioners, April 20, 1792. Letters of Com-
missioners.
VoL. I—oO
194 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The appointment of Blodgett was made by the commis-
sioners the following January. He was designated as “super-
visor of the buildings and in general of the affairs committed
to our care.” !
This suggestion of the need of a superintendent came from
Washington, who realized the necessity of a more minute
supervision of the business of the city than was possible from
non-resident officials who made monthly visits to the city. The
commissioners so far recognized the force ot the president’s
criticism that in December, 1792, they gave notice that “con-
stant attendance will be given by themselves or by a person
properly authorized at their office in Georgetown.” Several
years elapsed before a resident board was obtained. But the
plan of having a superintendent, which was apparently tested
in the appointment of Blodgett, was soon abandoned, as no
effort was made to supply his place upon the expiration of the
year. Three months had elapsed since the first appearance
of the advertisement of the middle of March, inviting designs
for the two public buildings. The earliest response came
from James Hoban, an architect living in Charleston, $.C.3
About the middle of June, 1792, Hoban came to Washing-
ton, for the first time, to view the ground and prepare a plan
for the president’s house. On coming north he went first to
Philadelphia and presented to Washington letters of introduction
from Colonel Laurens and other citizens of South Carolina.
With a letter to the commissioners from Washington, Hoban
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Jan. 5, 1793. His compensation
was fixed at $1600 per year, payable in money or in lots, and he was next
in power to the commissioners.
? Washington to the Commissioners, Nov. 13, 1792. War Depart-
ment Manuscripts.
* James Hoban was born in Dublin, Ireland, about the year 1762.
He was educated there, and in the year 1781 won the medal offered
art students by the Society of Arts. Shortly afterwards he came to
America and settled at Charleston, S.C., where he designed the state
house building, which in later years was destroyed by fire. He also
designed a number of private residences in that city. For thirty years,
and until his death in 1832, he was in the employment,of the govern-
ment in the city of Washington. History of the United States Capitol,
Vol. 1, p. 95. Glenn Brown. Washington, 1900.
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 195
went to the new city. A month later Washington stopped at
Georgetown on his way to Mount Vernon, and with the
commissioners examined the plans submitted for the president’s
house. On the 17th of July, 1792, the premium for the best
plan was awarded by this jury to James Hoban.!
Hoban chose as his premium a gold medal of the value of
ten guineas. He was employed to superintend the work,
“and such other work of the kind as may be in execution for
300 guineas per year.’’ (Proceedings of Commissioners, July
16, 1792.) Jefferson in a letter to the commissioners, dated
July 11, 1792, mentions sending plans, and among them one
“of a president’s house by a Mr. Hallet.’ As far as known,
no other designs were submitted in this competition.
The original drawings of Hoban are not in existence, but
they contemplated a building with wings. The central portion
was alone erected. The conception of the design is said to
have been suggested by the residence of the Duke of Leinster
in Dublin described as the most stately private edifice of the
day in Ireland. As the home of the Royal Dublin Society, the
structure is still one of the notable buildings of that city, but
it is evident that it served only as a general suggestion to the
architect of the president’s house.
Two days after the decision had been reached on the plans
submitted, the commissioners and the author of the accepted
design ‘‘went to the site of the palace that he might lay out
the foundations — a great part of the materials for the founda-
tion now lying on the spot.” ?
At this time the commissioners considered the plans that had
been submitted for the capitol building, but none of them met
with approval.*
1‘*The plans for the President’s House, prepared by John Collins,
appearing to be scientific and the second in merit which has been laid
before them, they directed the payment of $150 to Mr. Collins as a
token of their sense of the merits of his essay.”
2 Commissioners to Washington, July 19, 1792. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
The list of competitors as given in the History of the Capitol,
Vol. 1, p. 6, is as follows: Stephen Hallet, Judge George Turner,
196 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The plan of Stephen Hallet, “a French artist,” as the com-
missioners termed him, who was then living in Philadelphia,
seemed to the commissioners the most promising of all those
submitted, and so they wrote him that the style of architecture
which he employed attracted attention, but the distribution
of the parts of the building was not thought sufficiently con-
venient, and they asked him to come to the new city for a con-
ference, expressing the belief that his “design may perhaps
be improved into approbation.” He was told that his expenses
would be paid.
Washington was, however, more pleased with the plans
of Judge Turner of Pennsylvania than with any of the
others, and it also appears that features of Blodgett’s
plan met with approval, so that to these three were given
an opportunity to revise their drawings and submit them
again.!
The second competition proved fruitless, and on the 29th
of August, 1792, the commissioners informed Samuel Blodgett,
“The Turner plan was returned as not available. As the other
plans were not satisfactory, Mr. Hallet, a French artist, was
engaged to prepare one.” ?
Some six weeks later the commissioners received a letter
Samuel Blodgett, Lamphiere, 8S. M. McIntire, Jacob Small, James Dia-
mond, Charles Winter Smith, Andrew Mayo, Philip Hart, Abram
Farris, Colin Williamson, Carstairs and Hasborough. ‘‘The plans
submitted,’ observes Mr. Brown, the author of this book, ‘‘were with
few exceptions peculiarly indifferent. The larger number of the draw-
ings were made by amateurs or contractors who did not have the first
idea as to what constituted either good draftsmanship or design or
what were the necessary requisites of a Congressional hall.’’ In this
work are reproduced a number of the designs submitted from the
originals which are in the possession of the Maryland Historical So-
ciety. Blodgett’s attempt at architectural designing was not the
first one, as he is said to be the author of the plan of the building in
Philadelphia for the Bank of the United States which was completed
in 1797. History of Philadelphia, Scharf and Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 1068.
Philadelphia, 1884.
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book. Commissioners to Hallet, July 17,
1792. Commissioners to Washington, July 19, 1792. Washington
to the Commissioners, July 23, 1792.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book.
. PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 197
from Dr. William Thornton, written in October, 1792, from the
island of Tortola, West Indies, asking permission to submit
drawings for the public buildings. As the design for the
president’s house had been accepted, the commissioners in-
formed him they would be glad to have a design submitted
for the capitol. He was asked to send his drawings directly
to the president of the United States at Philadelphia, where
those of Hallet were to go. Before the correspondence
was concluded Dr. Thornton had returned to the United
States and resumed his residence at Philadelphia In
that city was the home of Hallet, and so in the closing
months of 1792 it became the scene of what proved to be the
final contest for the prize of designing the principal building in
the republic of the new world. In the first month of the new
year, the revised plans of Hallet were ready, and Dr. Thorn-
ton had submitted his design. The issue was not in doubt.
The Thornton design at once met with the approval of Wash-
ington. “The grandeur, simplicity and convenience” of the
Thornton plan, as it impressed Washington, also found favor
with Jefferson, who wrote, “Thornton’s plan had captivated
the eyes and judgment of all.”
The author of the plan had then passed his thirty-first year,
and had been a resident and citizen of the United States for
some four years. For two years just passed he had been living
in the West Indies, where he was born on the 27th of May, 1761,
on the island of Tortola.
The father of Dr. Thornton was an Englishman and a
member of the Society of Friends. He died when his son
William was two years of age.2 He was a man of means,
and left his son independent, and the latter was given the
benefit of the best educational facilities of the day. At
an early age he was sent to England, where he was edu-
cated. He studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh,
i Letter of Daniel Carroll, commissioner, Georgetown, Nov. 15,
1792, to Dr. William Thornton, 159 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.
J. Henley Smith Papers.
2 Dr. Thornton to John Quincy Adams, Nov. 18, 1818. J. Henley
Smith Papers.
198 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
where he received in 1784 the degree of doctor of medicine.!
After completing his course at the university Dr. Thornton,
who was then twenty-three years old, travelled on the conti-
nent, spending some time in Paris, where he continued his stud-
ies, and then he came to this country, arriving at that interest-
ing period when the constitution of the new American republic
was being ratified by the states. He was in New York early
in the year 1787, and at the opening of the following year he
was a resident of Wilmington, Delaware, where he became a
citizen of that state by subscribing to “the affirmation of
fidelity,’ to the state of Delaware required by an act of the gen-
eral assembly of that state, the first to ratify the constitution.?
He became interested in the ideas of James Fitch as to the
application of steam as a motive power for boats, and states
he was one of the chief proprietors and directors in the company
that was formed. The boat that was constructed by Fitch
and Co., Dr. Thornton states, in the year 1789, made a trip
on the Delaware from Philadelphia to Trenton, and he adds
it would have been successful if it had the funds and patronage
which Fulton was more fortunate in securing.*
In addition to contributing money for the development of
the steamboat, Dr. Thornton states he was the only person in
the company that had seen asteam engine. After the trial of
the first boat it was decided to build another, enlarging certain
parts. This work was undertaken during the absence of Dr.
Thornton inthe West Indies. “Theysoon forgot my directions,”’
—not to make any alterations, — “and made such alterations to
1 The parchment degree, with its ponderous leaden seal, is among the
Thornton papers in the J. Henley Smith collection. Library of Con-
gress.
2 J. Henley Smith Papers.
3 Dr. Thornton refused to acknowledge the claims of Fulton as the
inventor of the application of steam in boat navigation. He also
some years later got out several patents, claiming that his invention
was the application of steam to wheels at the sides of a boat or vessel,
instead of paddles at the sides, and in this, he asserts, he anticipated
Fulton. Thornton Papers on the steamboat. J. Henley Smith
Papers. Also a short account of the origin of steamboats written in
1810. W. Thornton, Washington. Rapine and Elliot, 1814.
- PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 199
simplify it that they rendered it too simple and it never moved.” !
During this period he had become a resident of Philadelphia,
but at that time he had no notion of establishing himself per-
manently in this country. He was planning to go back to
Tortola and engage in the practice of his profession. His
property interests were there, including a number of slaves,
and that consideration, perhaps also impressed on his mind
by the new movement in England to establish at Sierra Leone,
Africa, a colony of free blacks, brought him to the conclusion
that he would free his own slaves and lead them with free
blacks from America to the wider opportunities and the personal
liberty under the new government to be founded in Africa.
At one time he proposed to friends in England to take charge
of the new undertaking.
With his connections in England, his attainments and
personal charm of manner, Dr. Thornton evidently moved in
the best society of Philadelphia of that day. He knew Dr.
Franklin well enough to be invited to dinner at his house.
Perhaps it was Dr. Franklin’s interest in the Library Co. of
Philadelphia that drew him towards the young Englishman, for
in the spring of 1789 the movement towards the erection of a
building to house the books had reached such a stage that designs
for the proposed structure were invited. A number of plans
were submitted, but one bearing the name William Thornton was
pronounced by the judges to be the best, and the prize of a share
of stock in the company valued at $40 was awarded to him.”
As one phase of a rather remarkable versatility of talents
this excursion of Dr. Thornton into the field of a practising
architect is not surprising. He had already displayed a prac-
tical knowledge of machinery in connection with the Fitch
steamboat, and his aptitude in the use of the pencil and of
1 Account of his connection with the steamboat, Jan. 25, 1802.
J. Henley Smith Papers. Also the pamphlet on the steamboat printed
in 1814.
2 Historie Mansions and Buildings of Philadelphia. Thompson
Wescott, Philadelphia, 1877. Also Notes for a History of the Library
Co. of Philadelphia. John Jay Smith, from Waldies Portfolio and
Companion to the Select Cireulating Library.
200 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
colors in drawing had been shown in his illustrations of topics
of natural history which were the subject of letters with several
correspondents. But even with such abilities and a lively
interest in all that was instructive and, it might also be added,
confidence in his own powers, it does appear rather remarkable
that, without any experience in a profession to which years of
technical training are given, he should have had not only the
temerity to make the essay, but should meet with success from
the start. As he explains his first appearance in the réle of an
architect, it all seems quite simple and natural, but also highly
impracticable. This is what he writes in a sort of autobio-
graphic fragment dated Oct. 12, 1802: “I saw a publication for
a plan of a public library in Philadelphia offering a premium for
the best.
“When I travelled I never thought of architecture. But I
got some books and worked a few days, then gave a plan in
the ancient Ionic order, which carried the day.
“The president and secretary of state published a premium
of a gold medal of $500 and a lot for a house in the city of
Washington for the best plan and elevation of a capitol of the
United States. I lamented not having studied architecture,’
and resolved to attempt the grand undertaking and study
at the same time. I studied some months and worked al-
most night and day, but I found I was opposed by regular
architects from France and various other countries.” ! Dr.
Thornton went to Tortola in the fall of 1790.2 He was ac-
companied by his bride, Anna Maria Brodeau, the daughter
of Ann Brodeau, an Englishwoman who was in charge of a
school in Philadelphia. Mrs. Thornton is spoken of by her
mother at the time of her marriage as “but a child.”’ She
was born in England, was well read and intelligent and had
such accomplishments as music, painting and a knowledge of
the French language.
1 End of the fragment as preserved in the J. Henley Smith Papers.
2 Dr. Thornton states on page 6, Cadmus, that he went to the West
Indies on the 16th of October to visit his mother. She had married
again and was living there with her husband. A brother of Dr.
Thornton was also a resident of Tortola.
_ PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 201
The return of the Thorntons to the United States, two years
later, brought to a close the West Indian episode in their lives,
although communication by correspondence with the members
of the family there was maintained. A few months after the
capitol competition had been settled in his favor, Dr. Thornton
applied to the president for the appointment of private sec-
retary to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr.
Lear. The reply of the president shows a high degree of per-
sonal regard which continued through the years of increasing
intimacy down to the death of the president.!
The month following this application a prize dissertation,
by Dr. Thornton, on the elements of written language was
awarded a gold medal by the American Philosophical Society.
This discussion of a plan for an alphabet representing the
various sounds and a plea for a simplified spelling, together
with a method of teaching oral speech to the deaf and dumb,
which is now in use by the leading schools for that class, proved
to be his principal work.’
Before the close of the year 1793 Dr. Thornton broke up his
home in Philadelphia, and with his wife and mother-in-law came
to Georgetown, where he established his residence. He had
declined the office tendered him by the commissioners of super-
intendent of the capitol,* and therefore came to the new seat
1“‘T have been duly favored,’’ writes Washington to Dr. Thornton,
Dee. 3, 1793, ‘‘with your letter of the 29th ult. and thank you for your
obliging offer to supply the office lately occupied by Mr. Lear. I am
persuaded it would have been ably filled with your abilities, but
previous to the departure of that gentleman, my arrangements were
made in favor of Mr. Dandridge, who is now in the exercise of the office
of private secretary.”’ J. Henley Smith Papers.
2 Cadmus, a treatise on the elements of written language, with an
essay on teaching the deaf and dumb to speak. William Thornton,
M.D., member of the societies of Scots Antiquaries of Edinburgh and
Perth; the Medical Society and the Society of Natural History of
Edinburgh; the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia.
R. Aitken, 1793. c
The book was printed early in January, 1793, as there is a letter
in the Thornton Papers from President Washington, dated January 8,
acknowledging with thanks the receipt of a copy.
4 History of the United States Capitol, p. 9.
202 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
of government without having any regular business or occupa-
tion, thus making no change in that respect in his way of living
up to that time except for a brief period when he practised
medicine in Philadelphia.
President Washington’s approval of the Thornton plan in
Philadelphia was evidently looked upon by Mr. Jefferson as
the last word on the subject, although as yet the commissioners
had not seen the drawings, for, in writing to those officials
under date of Jan. 31, 1793, he expresses his satisfaction with
Dr. Thornton’s plan and its superiority to that of Hallet.
Jefferson suggests the latter be taken into the service at a
fixed allowance. “I understand that his necessities render it
material that he know what his allowance is to be.”
The design submitted by Dr. Thornton in the competition
has not been preserved, but it is evident that, like the others,
it was merely a sketch showing the elevation of the proposed
structure without the detailed drawings. The selection of a
design was followed by the preparation of working drawings,
and Hallet was employed for that purpose. This division of
the work of an architect led to what proved to be a fruitful
source of annoyance and delay, for in this way men were ex-
pected to carry out the ideas of others, and the history of the
building of the capitol goes to show that the architects, with
the exception of Mr. Hoban, intrusted to carry out Thornton’s
plan, sooner or later came to the conclusion they could improve
the original design, and persisted in trying to have their way.
Early in March Dr. Thornton made his first visit to the city.
He came with a letter of introduction from the president to
the commissioners dated March 3, 1793. A few days later, or
about the middle of March, some two months after the business
had been settled in Philadelphia, the commissioners officially
approved the Thornton plan and awarded him the prize of
$500 and a lot. “As Mr. Hallet ranks next,’ they stated,
“and because he has applied himself to the competition by
particular request, they have given him the same reward.”
This probably referred to the time given by Hallet to the prep-
aration of a plan as requested by the commissioners in the
. PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 203
latter part of the previous August, when all the plans submitted
were pronounced unsatisfactory.1_ The commissioners planned
to stake out the foundations of the capitol building during
the coming fall, and employed Hallet to superintend the erec-
tion of the building. As Dr. Thornton’s plan had been
accepted with no estimate of the cost, the commissioners
called on Hallet to furnish the figures, and, as the result of
his study of the drawings, he reached the conclusion that
the plan was not practicable, independent of its great cost.”
Hallet also prepared another design, which Jefferson states
was “the one adopted as Dr. Thornton’s plan rendered into
practicable form.” #
The differences were of such a character, however, that
Washington decided to submit the matter to a conference or a
commission composed of men whose judgment might be relied
upon to bring some definite result out of the tangle. The com-
mission was composed of Mr. Hoban, Mr. Hallet, Dr. Thornton
and Mr. Carstairs, a builder of Philadelphia, or “undertaker,” as
the term was in that day, who had been selected by Dr. Thorn-
ton, and Colin Williamson, who was also a builder. As a result
of this interchange of views it was concluded the defects of the
Thornton design could be cured. Then in a letter to the
commission above referred to, Washington stated it had been
decided to begin the foundation of the capitol upon the plan
as exhibited by Mr. Hallet, “preserving,” he adds, “the
original ideas of Dr. Thornton, but such as upon the whole
might be considered as his (Mr. Hallet’s plan), leaving the
recess of the east front open for further consideration.”
1A feature of this award to the author of the design of the prin-
cipal building of the federal city brings out in strange contrast the
condition of the finances of the city at that time, for in the proceedings
of the commissioners under date of June 22, 1793, three months after
the award, there is a record of an order given in favor of Samuel Blod-
gett, ‘‘being the sum advanced by him to Dr. Thornton as a premium
for the best plan of tke Capitol.”
2 Washington to Jefferson, June 30, 1793.
3 Washington to the Commissioners, July 25, 1793. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
4 Jefferson to Washington, July 17, 1793. Jefferson Papers.
204 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Thus by the middle of July, 1793, the obstacle in the way of
starting the building of the capitol was removed.
In the course of a couple of weeks, after the design of the
president’s house had been accepted and the exact location
fixed upon, Washington again returned to the city, and in com-
pany with the commissioners “viewed the ground where the
palace is to be and decided that the north front of the building
should be brought up to the post fixed by Major L’Enfant for
the centre of the north front. Among other reasons it will
be most in view to the diagonals and on east and west
streets, though not so much so from the capitol as might be
wished.” !
In a little more than two months the work of building had so
far advanced that on the 13th of October, 1792, three days
before the public sale of lots began, the corner-stone of the
president’s house was laid. A procession as usual at such func-
tions was formed, headed by the commissioners and members
of the masonic lodge and citizens of Washington and George-
town.?
No doubt, this formal beginning of the president’s house was
arranged with reference to the second sale of lots. The offer-
ings on that occasion were continued for three days, but the
number of purchasers was not large. In addition to starting
one of the two principal structures to be erected, several build-
ings had been built for the use of workmen and the storing of
materials both in that vicinity and near the site of the capitol,
a wharf on the river near the mouth of the Tiber west of 17th
Street had been built and the opening of the post-road through
the city had been begun.
Blodgett, who by that time was taking an active interest in
the city, although not as yet officially connected with its man-
agement, gratified the commissioners by finding purchasers
1Commissioners to Thomas Johnson, Aug. 2, 1792. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book.
2 Proceedings of the Commissioners, Oct. 13, 1792. This was
Masonic Lodge No. 9 of Georgetown, later known as Potomac Lodge.
Federal Lodge No. 15, the first lodge organized in Washington, came
into existence Sept. 12, 1793.
_PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 205
for fifteen lots, after the public sale, at $266 per lot. He also
purchased from the commissioners the whole of square 688
then bounded by A and B and Ist and Capitol Square south-
east, now a part of the capitol grounds, in furtherance of a
scheme to improve it by the erection of houses, which was not
carried out. At this time Blodgett bought from the com-
missioners and individuals several lots in other parts of the
city, and when his acquisition of the Jamaica tract early in
the following year is taken into consideration, his cash invest-
ments aggregated about $40,000.
On the very day that Blodgett became officially connected
(Jan. 5, 1793) with the city, he succeeded in interesting the
commissioners in one of his schemes, which gave endless trouble
to them and contributed to his own financial downfall. He
proposed a lottery, the principal prize of which was to be a
hotel building to be erected in the city. The lottery was ad-
vertised as “by the commissioners appointed to prepare the
public buildings, ete., within the city of Washington” and
signed “Samuel Blodgett, agent for the affairs of the city.” }
The hotel was to cost $50,000. At the outset the enterprise
was decidedly official. John M. Gantt, clerk of the commis-
sioners, was one of the managers, and Samuel Davidson and
Daniel Reintzel were requested by the board to prepare and
examine the tickets for the drawing, which was to be held in
the fall of 1793 about the date of the next sale of lots. William
Deakins, Jr., the treasurer of the board, with Blodgett had the
entire charge of selling the tickets, the former becoming re-
sponsible for the disposal of 40 per cent of the fifty thousand
tickets, and Blodgett undertaking to sell the rest.
The plans of the building were prepared by James Hoban,
the architect of the president’s house, while the site at the
northeast corner of 8th and E streets northwest belonged to the
public, with the exception of the corner lot that was purchased
by Blodgett from David Burnes and then transferred to the
commissioners without pecuniary consideration, so that the
1 Gazette of the United States, Jan. 19, 1793. The scheme is given
in full.
206 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
entire site occupied by the building should be in the name of
the commissioners.!
The national anniversary was chosen as the time for laying
the corner-stone of the hotel, and on that occasion, according to
a contemporary account, “1500 people were present and walked
from thence in procession, preceded by a lodge of free masons,
to a dinner, the principal dish of which consisted of an ox roasted
whole. A number of toasts were drunk on the occasion, and
the day concluded with much harmony.” ?
The building of brick had a frontage of one hundred and
twenty feet and was two stories in height, with a basement and
an attic story. Standing on the crest of what was known as
the F Street ridge with a front adorned by a classic pediment,
it presented an imposing mass in the fields and woods of the in-
fant city. When the ninth day of September, 1793, came, it
was found that a number of tickets deposited at different places
for sale remained unsold, “and there being no fund established
to pay any loss that might be sustained by keeping those tickets
at the risk of the city, they (the commissioners) determined to
defer the drawing until they could be all sold.” ?
But the delay was only for a couple of weeks, as the account
states, “a number of gentlemen of this town [Georgetown] and
the city of Washington formed themselves into a company and
took upon themselves all the tickets remaining on hand on the
express condition agreed to by the commissioners that the
1 Answer of Thomas Munroe, superintendent of the city to the bill
of complaint by Robert S. Bickley, Jan. 30, 1804. Transcript of
Record Court of Appeals, D.C., April term, 1909, No. 1999, p. 150.
Camp vs. devisees will of Caleb C. Willard. Reprinted from the record
of the suit of Robert S. Bickley, the winner of the first prize in the
hotel lottery filed Oct. 9, 1802. Circuit Court of the District.
2 Gazette of the United States, July 17, 1793. It may be concluded,
on account of the probable imaginative touch in the estimate of the
number of people present, this report of the affair was inspired by
Blodgett. The masonic lodge referred to was probably the Potomac
of Georgetown.
3 Gazette of the United States, Sept. 14, 1793. This account is
curious and contributes evidence in support of the defence made by
Blodgett in the subsequent legal proceedings that the lottery was an
affair of the commissioners and that he was merely the agent.
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 207
drawing of the lottery should absolutely commence on the 23d
inst. [September] and be continued without interruption.”
The committee appointed to manage the concerns of the com-
pany were B. Stoddert, J. Mason, J. M. Lingan, M. Waring and
T. Peter.1
The drawing of the lottery began on the 23d of September
and was continued at first three days of each week, but it was
not until the fall of 1794 the list of prizes was finally announced.”
The circumstances surrounding this postponement of the
drawing were probably of such a character as to arouse the sus-
picions of the commissioners and to cause them to feel uneasy
about the results of the lottery. At any rate, they at once
adopted a course to protect the city funds from possible loss,
and the ready acquiescence in their demands by Messrs. Blod-
gett and Deakins furnishes a strong confirmation of the position
which the commissioners assumed that the lottery was not their
affair, but rested entirely on the responsibility of Blodgett and
his associate.
Three days before the actual drawing began, namely, on the
20th of September, 1793, they obtained from Messrs. Blodgett
and Deakins a legal declaration that the responsibility for the
lottery and the payment of the prizes rested solely on Blodgett
and that the commissioners were not answerable in any way.
It was further agreed to execute any further instrument of
writing the commissioners might desire, and in accordance with
this latter stipulation Biodgett, on Jan. 28, 1794, four months
later by deed conveyed to trustees all his property in the Dis-
trict and in addition 7160 shares, par value $10, of the stock of
the Insurance Company of North America, of which he was a
director, to secure the payment of the lottery prizes and to pro-
tect the commissioners from all loss or damages in consequence
of the lottery. In a few weeks after the lottery scheme re-
1In the issue of the Gazette of the United States of Sept. 14, 1793,
appears a list of the names of the twenty-five managers to superintend
the drawing, which includes nearly all those of the men then prominent
as property holders in the new city.
2 Federal Gazette, Oct. 21 and Nov. 9, 1794.
3 District Land Records. B, folio 9.
208 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ceived the sanction of the-city authorities, Blodgett proposed
to them, in view of the flattering prospects of the success of
that undertaking and also because of a recent act of the Mary-
land legislature which forbade such enterprises, except by per-
mission of the legislature, after the first of June of that year,
that a second lottery be authorized. The commissioners gave
their approval to this second enterprise and wrote to the
president for his sanction.!
In the closing month of the previous year, the Virginia legis-
lature placed on the statute books the first law relating to the
new District that had come from that body. A charter was
granted for a bank to be located in Alexandria, to be known as
the Bank of Alexandria, having a capital of $150,000, increased
to $350,000 in 1795. It is impossible to say to what extent
this legislation was influenced by the fact that Alexandria was
in the federal District. As the first bank, not only in the state
of Virginia, but the second south of Philadelphia, the Bank of
Maryland in Baltimore being the first, it appears on the face
of it that such a distinction points to Alexandria as being the
most important commercial centre in that state. The year
before, however, and about eleven months after the location
of the District had been determined, the citizens of Alexandria
had vainly attempted to have a branch of the Bank of the
United States, then just chartered by congress, opened in their
town. Richmond and Norfolk also made similar fruitless ap-
plication, so that it would seem when a year later the legis-
lature of the state provided such a business facility for Alexan-
dria alone, it might be inferred the recent change in the outlook
for Alexandria had weight.? In less than a year after Ellicott
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, April 9, 1793.
* The stock was oversubscribed in less than two hours after the
books were opened. Intending subscribers were informed their sub-
scriptions must be accompanied with the specie for the number of
shares they intended to take; if in gold, to be weighed, or in silver, to
be counted and marked on the outside of the paper, in order to expe-
dite the business (Columbian Mirror, Dec. 5 and 8, 1792). Philip
R: Fendall was elected president, and Thomas Porter served as cashier
for a few days, when he was succeeded by Gurden Chapin. The fol-
lowing constituted the first board of directors: Richard Conway,
PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING 209
had been placed at the head of the surveying department, his
relations with the commissioners became so strained that on
Jan. 8, 1793, he notified them that he would leave the service
of the city on the first of the coming May. This was his re-
sponse to a letter from the official heads of the city expressing
their disappointment about the slow progress of the surveying
work, and also, as it subsequently came out, they charged that
errors had been made in the surveys. At any rate, the situa-
tion became so tense that on March 12, 1793, Ellicott and his
corps of assistants, including at that time Isaac Briggs, Ben-
jamin Ellicott and George Fenwick, were discharged.
In the course of a week or so, after this crisis had been reached,
and before any further steps had been taken, Washington came
to the city on one of the brief visits which became common in
the early years and, as a result of a conversation with Ellicott,
the purport of which he sent to the commissioners under date
of April 3, 1793, Ellicott and his assistants returned to the
service. It is evident from Washington’s letter, that in addi-
tion to criticism of Ellicott’s work on the part of the commis-
sioners, they also complained he had been lacking in respect to
his superiors.
As Ellicott assured Washington that his conduct of the work
could be explained satisfactorily and that he meant no dis-
respect to the commissioners, Washington put it to the com-
missioners “whether an accommodation under all circumstances
is not to be preferred to an open breach and a newspaper justi-
fication which will inevitably follow.”
The order restoring Ellicott was dated April 9, 1793, less
than a month after his discharge. Then on the 15th of April
came an appointment to Ellicott from the governor of Pennsyl-
vania to survey a road from Reading to Waterford in the western
portion of the state, an undertaking of great responsibility as
well as of peril, the latter due to the danger of Indian attacks.
William Hartshorne, Robert T. Hooe, William Wilson, William Her-
bert, Jonah Thompson and William Hodgson.
Details of the history of this bank are to be found in a paper entitled
The Financial Institutions of Washington City in its Early Days.
Charles E. Howe. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 8.
VOL. I-——-P
210 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
In this work he was occupied.for the two ensuing years, and took
no further part in the Washington enterprise.1 The commis-
sioners appointed no one in his place, and the office of chief
of the surveying department was practically abolished and each
surveyor was held responsible for the work intrusted to him.’
The ability and skill of Major Ellicott in his calling had been
established before he became identified with the city, and this
call to another field was not the first one he had received, even
in the short time of his service with the city as principal sur-
veyor which, closing in the summer of 1793, lasted a little over
a year. In the previous fall he had been employed by Robert
Morris to verify the lines of a survey of land in the Phelps and
Gorham tract in western New York which Mr. Morris had
purchased. He was able to finish this task in a short time and
return to his work in the city.®
One of the causes of Ellicott’s discontent, as mentioned by
1“ Major Ellicott, after his absence a great part of the summer and
all the fall as we hear in other service, has returned to us in the winter.
We do not accept his further services; the business, we believe, was
going on full as well without him.’’ Commissioners to Washington,
Dec. 23, 1793. Commissioners’ Letter Book.
2 The progress made in the survey of the city up to practically the
end of Ellicott’s service is given in a statement made to the commis-
sioners by James R. Dermott, Feb. 28, 1799 (Papers of Commis-
sioners). He stated that the principal part of the work done until
July or August, 1792, was confined to the section of the city beginning
at Rock Creek and bounded on the north by a line along M Street thence
south on 15th Street to G, thence to 3d Street, W., to the canal and with
the latter and the Potomac and Rock Creek to the point of beginning.
Of the work to the eastward of the capitol he states there was nothing
done permanently for some time afterwards.
3 Andrew Ellicott. Catherine Van Cortlandt Mathews, p. 70,
New York, 1908. It may be interesting to note that some years later,
when Benjamin Ellicott, who continued in the service of the city after
his brother left it, was employed to make a plan for the laying out of
Buffalo, N.Y., introduced a suggestion of the feature of the Washing-
ton plan, namely, avenues radiating from a centre. The plan of the
city of Detroit is the only other city plan in the United States that
shows the influence of the scheme followed in Washington and
that was due to Augustus B. Woodward, a resident of Washington
in its early days and who was appointed judge of the territory of
Michigan.
_ PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING aT
Washington in his correspondence with the commissioners, was
due to unfriendly relations with James R. Dermott, who had
been given employment by the commissioners in the surveying
department about the time Ellicott was placed in charge.
Dermott was then a teacher in an academy in Alexandria.
His selection was made on the recommendation of Dr. Stuart,
who was also practically a citizen of that place. For some
reason which is not now known, Mr. Dermott continued to be
a storm centre in the surveying department, although in the
case of Andrew Ellicott the records show that Dermott was the
author of the charge of imperfections in his work.!
After Ellicott left the city, Dermott was placed in exclusive
charge of dividing the squares into lots. He was the author of
the plan of the city known as the Tin Case Map, which was sent
to congress by President Adams.
The friction in the surveying department had scarcely been
allayed for the time, when the president was notified by Com-
missioners Johnson and Stuart of their wish to be relieved from
the duties of their positions. Washington mentions this cir-
cumstance as a reason for hastening the closing up of the
lottery business, as they did not wish to leave the service
until that was out of the way. He further explains in a letter,
dated Aug. 29, 1793, to the commissioners that Mr. Johnson’s
motive for leaving was a desire to avail himself of opportunities
for private business, “for he thinks he or anybody else cannot
act for the public and himself.’ As Mr. Johnson, on retiring
to private life, became the purchaser of sundry lots in the city
of Washington, it might be inferred that Washington real
estate offered the opportunities he had in mind. No reason is
assigned for Dr. Stuart’s retirement.
Great preparations were made to fix public attention upon the
sale of lots to be held in the fall of 1793. At that time the cor-
ner-stone of the capitol was to be laid. In the meantime the
1 Early Maps and Surveyors of the City of Washington. John
Stewart, C. E. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 2. In the J. Henley Smith Papers,
Library of Congress, is a letter of Andrew Ellicott to Dr. Thornton,
Feb. 23, 1795.
212 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
work of building the Great Hotel was being pushed, so that the
visitors attracted to the city on that occasion might see the
progress made with that structure as well as with the president’s
house and be encouraged to have a part in the new venture by
buying lots.
CHAPTER IX
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS
In spite of the skilful focussing of attractive events about
the date of the sale of lots in September, 1793, purchasers were
in no greater numbers than on previous occasions. The presi-
dent not only attended the sale but he became the purchaser
of four lots on the Eastern Branch, “the doing of which,” he
explains in a letter to the commissioners dated March 14, 1794,
“was more the result of accident than premeditation and being
unwilling, from that circumstance, it should be believed that I
had greater predilection to the southern part of the city, I pro-
posed the next day, the sale being continued, to buy a like num-
ber of lots in Hamburg, Square 21.”
The president was, of course, the principal figure in the cere-
monies, more elaborate in character than anything of the sort
witnessed in the new city, at the laying of the corner-stone of
the north wing of the capitol building. The Virginia artillery
was conspicuous and the masonic lodges of Alexandria, George-
town and Washington were present in their appropriate re-
galia, while two bands supplied the music. The procession
formed at the President’s Square and marched thence to the
capitol, but not along the now historic thoroughfare of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue but probably over the new post road that followed
in part what is now the line of F Street. A short distance west
from the capitol site, the procession reached the banks of the
Tiber and there, at the fording place, the regular order was
broken, while the individuals composing the procession crossed
“the rude bridge formed of a single log” or “a little above by a
my]
few large stones.
The ceremonies were in charge of Joseph Clark, master of
Lodge No. 12, of Annapolis, acting as grand master. According
1 Recollections of George Wattertson. Intelligencer, Aug. 26, 1847.
213
214 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
to tradition General Washington laid the stone, the grand
master having delegated to him the authority."
The address of the grand master was punctuated by volleys
fired by an artillery company of the militia. At the close of
the exercises the company was refreshed at a barbecue of an ox
weighing five hundred pounds, served in a large booth erected
near the site of the new building.? The lack of buyers at the
sale of lots no doubt was largely accounted for by the depressed
state of business and the tightness of the money market, re-
flecting the unsettled condition in Europe. In addition the
commissioners had trouble in collecting the deferred payments
on the lots previously sold.
“We are sorry to inform you,” they write to the secretary of
state, “that there has not only been a great want of punctuality
among those who purchased at the first sale in the second pay-
ment, but even among those who were purchasers at the last,
of their first advance.” *
But as the principal source of revenue was dried up when
there was no market for lots and the efforts to procure a loan
had failed, the situation was one of difficulty. Just at this
critical time a way appeared to be opened through the appear-
ance on the scene of James Greenleaf, a young man of twenty-
seven years, belonging to a prominent Massachusetts family.
He had a letter of introduction to the commissioners from the
president, who informed them that “Mr. Greenleaf was a
native of Boston, who has resided for some years past in Amster-
dam, and has lately been appointed consul for the United States
at Amsterdam.”
1 History of the Grand Lodge and of Freemasonry in the District of
Columbia, Washington, 1911, p. 22. The gavel said to have been
used by Washington on this occasion is still preserved by Potomac
Lodge No. 5, the successor of Lodge No. 9 of Georgetown.
2 Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette. Sept. 25, 1793. In
“The Lodge of Washington. A history of the Alexandria Wash-
ington Lodge, No. 22, A. F. and A. M. of Alexandria, Va.”’ F. L.
Brockett, Alexandria, 1876, it is stated that Washington acted as the
master of Alexandria Lodge on this occasion.
’ Commissioners to secretary of state. Dec. 5, 1792, State Depart-
ment, D.C., Papers.
- THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 215
“This gentleman, I understand, has it in contemplation to
make certain proposals to you for building a number of houses
in the federal city provided he can have lots upon such terms
and conditions as may correspond with his interest in the un-
dertaking, while it tends, at the same time, to promote the
great object of the city. ... He has been represented to me
as a gentleman of large property and having the command of
much money in this country and in Europe. But I can say
nothing on this head from my own knowledge.” !
“Having had occasion to make enquiry respecting him before
his appointment to the office of consul, the accounts which I
received were highly favorable to Mr. Greenleaf, both as to the
respectability of his connections in this country and in Holland
where he married and as to his own character. I have reason
to believe that if you can find it consistent with your duty to
the public to attach Mr. Greenleaf to the federal city, he will
be a valuable acquisition.” ? As the result of this visit Green-
leaf made an offer to buy three thousand lots, and « few days
after the public sale, namely, on the 23d of September, 1793,
the commissioners entered into a formal agreement with him
for the sale of that quantity at $66.50 per lot of an average of
5265 square feet each, to be paid in seven annual instalments
without interest beginning on the first of the following May.
The purchaser was to erect ten houses of specified size yearly
for seven years. No sales were to be made by Greenleaf be-
fore Jan. 1, 1796, except on the condition that on every third
lot sold a house should be built within four years following
the date of the sale.
But in the then state of affairs the clause in the agreement
which was perhaps looked upon by the commissioners as of
great importance was the one that obligated Greenleaf individ-
1In the year 1796 Greenleaf claimed that his estate could be liqui-
dated at the rate of a million a year for five years, and later on spoke
of his ‘‘ample fortune” as all gone except “‘the waste and worthless
paper” of his two associates in the Washington venture. Greenleaf
and Law in the Federal City, p. 173.
2 Washington to the Commissioners, Aug. 20, 1793. State Depart-
ment, D.C., Papers.
216 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ually to furnish the commissioners $2200 each month as a loan
at 6 per cent, and to continue such supplies of money until the
public buildings were completed. While in Holland in 1788
Greenleaf had negotiated a loan with the Dutch bankers based
on American securities. He also while there gained a Dutch
wife. Now that he was to return to that country in an official
capacity, with his acquaintance there already established, he
was, in his own esteem as well as that of others, looked upon as a
potent influence in Dutch financial circles.
The previous year he had joined Robert Morris, the wealth-
iest man of the day in the United States and prominent in public
affairs during and since the war of the revolution, in one of the
series of extensive land purchases that Morris had undertaken
when American independence had been established, in the ex-
pectation of a great rise in land values due to the tide of emi-
gration which he confidently believed would set in to this
country. Morris became a silent partner in the agreement
made at this time by Greenleaf with the commissioners, taking
on his account one third of the lots, but not assuming any
responsibility for the loan, which Greenleaf had engaged to
make for the commissioners.
Greenleaf’s confidence in his ability to float a loan in Holland
on the Washington property, as it opened a prospect of a fur-
ther supply of money from the same source, proved so attractive
to Morris that he decided to enlarge the scope of his enterprise
in that city.”
This was accomplished in a second agreement made two
months later with the commissioners under date of Dec. 24,
1793,> in which Morris appeared with Greenleaf as prin-
1 Robert Morris to President Washington, Sept. 21, 1795. Quoted
in Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 114.
2““Our embarrassments have arisen from another source. Mr.
Greenleaf is under contract with his hand and seal to provide us with
money to carry through the operations, which, at his instance, we were
tempted to undertake, but the French invasion of Holland put it out
of his power to fulfill. The failure being occasioned by public events
. . . he, in some degree, has been a sharer.’’ The same.
8 Liber B, folio 541. Recorder of Deeds.
- THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS Zz
cipals, and the former’s associate in many of his land
transactions, John Nicholson, was to be joined with the pur-
chasers as surety in a certain event. It is probable also that
Nicholson was equally interested in the first agreement,
although, as in the case of Morris, his name was not used.!
By the terms of the second agreement the commissioners
sold six thousand lots instead of three. The conditions in the
new agreement as to credit, building and selling were the same
as in the first, except that the price was averaged up to $80 per
lot. The building requirement was doubled, so that the pur-
chasers were to build twenty instead of ten houses yearly for a
period of seven years, and no title was to be given by the com-
missioners unless first all the terms were complied with. In
these particulars the transaction was lifted above the range of
a mere speculative venture.
A suggestion of the latter character may be traced in the
proviso allowing Morris and Greenleaf to associate in the whole
purchase one or more persons without entailing on them the
obligations to build imposed on ordinary buyers, thus allowing
an enlargement of the membership of the syndicate, a privilege
not made use of except to bring in Mr. Nicholson as principal.
The interests of the city were safeguarded, especially when the
character and the high financial standing of the three men are
taken into consideration, as probably no men at that period
were in better repute, especially in the money market.
However, it was essentially a speculation as far as the pur-
chasers were concerned, and if the outcome had been a success,
their shrewdness and foresight would no doubt have been cele-
brated even after the lapse of more than a century. As it is,
the actors in these opening years of the existence of the city
have come under the shadow of the cloud of disaster and failure
which marks this period, and their achievements, as well as the
manner of men they were, have been so obscured as to be almost
impossible to revive even in faint outlines.
1 John Nicholson held at that time, as he hud for many years, the
important office of controller-general of the state of Pennsylvania.
He was a close personal friend of Morris, and like him was engaged
218 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
At the time, these big operators expected to realize rapidly
on their investment and their confidence is shown by the readi-
ness with which they accepted the rather stiff terms of the
commissioners.
What Washington thought of the first transaction is expressed
in a letter to Tobias Lear of Sept. 25, 1793, in which he says he
thinks Greenleaf has made “very advantageous terms for him-
self and I am pleased with it, notwithstanding on public ground,
as it may give facility to the operations at that place, at the
same time that it is embarking him and his friends in a measure
which, although it could not well fail under any circumstances
that are likely to happen, may considerably be promoted by
men of spirit with large capitals.”’
In a letter to Washington explaining the enlarged agreement
entered into with Morris and Greenleaf, the commissioners
state “a consideration of the uncertainty of settled times and
an embarrassed commerce weighed much with us as well as
Mr. Morris’s capital, influence and activity. The statement
of funds enclosed may enable the prosecution of the work even
in a war, in which event we should, without this contract, have
been almost still.” ?
The benefit to the city was felt to be an immediate one, and
at the beginning a spirit of codperation was manifested by both
parties to the agreement, which no doubt would have continued
to mark the intercourse, if financial embarrassments and the
attendant evils had not intervened. It had just then been
discovered that the projection of rock into the river a short
distance southwest of the president’s house, a favorite landing
extensively in buying land. They were associated in a large number
of transactions. He was also one of the wealthy men of that day.
1“*Nobody can suppose that Mr. Nicholson or myself entered into
these engagements with an expectation of holding the property. It
was from the beginning and is now our intention to sell when it can
be done to our satisfaction, and I believe the interest of the city will
be more certainly promoted by interesting a number of individuals,
than by any one or two men continuing to hold a large number of
lots.”” Morris to Washington, Sept. 21, 1795. Greenleaf and Law in
the Federal City, p. 114.
* Commissioners’ Letter Book, Dec. 23, 1793.
“THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 219
place known as the Key of all Keys, and also later on as Brad-
dock’s Rock, would make excellent foundation stone, and in
fact it was from this source that the greater portion of the stone
used in the foundation walls of the capitol and the president’s
house was taken.!
The commissioners promised to let Greenleaf have the use of
a part of this stone. They also expressed the intention “to
interest him in the quarries at Acquia, he benefiting us in the
use of the brick machine.” ?
Enlisting the interest of three such men in the new city, and
especially when one of them was Robert Morris, and the pros-
pect of building activity and the bringing in of new men and
abundance of money were no doubt bright and_ alluring
both to the city officials and to individual owners. This would
have been the case largely even if the transaction had been con-
fined to acquiring more than half of the public lots.®
But while Greenleaf was in the city negotiating the terms of
the second agreement with the commissioners he purchased on
behalf of the syndicate nearly seven hundred lots from Daniel
Carroll and Notley Young. During the ensuing twelve months
he made further purchases from individuals, so that the total
reached 1234 lots, making altogether 7234 lots under their
control in the city of Washington.*
1 ‘Before the day of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal it [Key of all
Keys] was a large and bold projection into the river... . When the
C and O canal was constructed through this part of Washington, the
tow path was filled in through the water in the river and in order to
make it, it became necessary to blast and remove a large portion of
this rock.’’ Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 166, Vol. 11.
2 Commissioners to Washington, Dec. 23, 1793. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
3 The lots owned by the public were estimated at this time to be
10,136, while a similar number were in the hands of the proprietors.
Washington in Embryo, Washington, 1874.
4 Morris’s own account of his holdings was given in his statement
of his property printed without date or place after his financial collapse
and is as follows as relating to the Washington property.
From the Commissioners. . ...-...+-.- =. - .- ~- 6000 lots
Re ouey Soda sts asl ee ts 428) doe
romania: Carroll = uc 5. Noaweeee AS ow? ol « 2200s
220 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Several tracts of acreage property on the south side of
the Eastern Branch were also acquired in the interests of
the syndicate as well as near the Great Falls.1_ The terms of
the agreement provided for only the customary credit for the
principals. But hardly had the enlarged paper been signed
than Greenleaf broached the subject of an extension in that
particular. As early as Dec. 23, 1793, the commissioners
in a letter to Washington state they desire to comply with
Greenleaf’s wish to secure title to a portion of the lots before
they are paid for. They had therefore concluded that if Morris
and Greenleaf together with Nicholson would join in a bond
to secure the payment of the money, they would be justified in
substituting personal security for real estate. It is evident
Washington gave his approval, and in this way the purchasers
obtained title to large blocks of lots for which they had not paid.”
Apparently about the same time Greenleaf came to the city,
Tobias Lear, who had then but recently given up the position of
secretary to the president after a service of eight years, carried
Lands called the’ Hop-yard’. >. 3. se ew he LOE ots
From: Porrest'and Stoddert' =) 207) 3 . 2 5. 3) 2398 lots
Brom) WilltamsKine® oi ech oS beat. vier te eee ed Pe LOSuelots
From William Bagely. . .. <i. a ee 793 lots
From Cazenove [Peter] and Branch ‘Georeel ate Ree CAO 40 lots
Total lots Sales . . . 4234 lots
1J.n a letter to Wadlineion: rey 23, 1793, vie commissioners state
‘Messrs. Greenleaf and Morris do not bound themselves to the city;
they have embraced the Great Falls and seem desirous of acquiring on
other parts of the Patomac.’”’ Commissioners’ Letter Book.
The commissioners writing to Robert Morris, Dec. 23, 1793, in
regard to Greenleaf’s transaction on their joint behalf express the
feeling that the terms ‘‘will be so pleasing as to insure your aid to the
degree we expect and which we have contemplated with confidence.”
They also speak with satisfaction of his expressed intention to send
his son to the city to represent the interests of the purchasers. How-
ever, William Morris did not take the agency in this city as was pro-
posed. William Cranch, then a young man twenty-five years of
age, a brother-in-law of Greenleaf and a nephew of Mrs. John Adams,
wife of the vice-president of the United States, became the Washing-
ton agent in the fall of 1794. Samuel Eliot, a nephew of Greenleaf
and of Mrs. Cranch, came to the city at the same time and was employed
as the bookkeeper of the syndicate. In later years he became the
eashier of the Bank of Washington.
_ THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 221
out what was evidently a long-cherished plan, — to embark in
business and identify his fortunes with that of the infant city.
As early as the year 1791 he had asked L’Enfant to purchase
for him a lot in Washington and the record showsthat he became
the owner of Lot 4, Square 105 (north side of H Street between
18th and 19th streets, N. W.) in October of that year. It is
reasonable to suppose that during the intervening two years he
had kept in close touch with the course of affairs in the new city.
It is also a reasonable conjecture that, being in Philadelphia
and on terms of intimacy with the leading men there, he
was familiar with the plans of Messrs. Morris and Greenleaf.
At any rate, when he did come to the new city to establish him-
self in business, Greenleaf became associated with him. Lear
brought with him a letter of introduction from Washington to
the commissioners. The president in this letter informed
the commissioners that Lear with others contemplated founding
in the federal city a mercantile establishment and desired to
acquire a suitable site.!
A firm was formed under the name of Lear and Company,
composed of Tobias Lear, Tristam Dalton and James Greenleaf.’
A site for a wharf was secured on Square 9 between 26th Street
and the Potomac and F and G streets, and a stone warehouse
was erected there. The firm also owned a square on the west
side of Rock Creek in Georgetown, bounded by M, Olive, 27th
and Rock Creek, and two lots on the Eastern Branch between S
and T streets, S. W. In the fall of 1794 their business had
reached such proportions that Dalton decided to make his
home in the new city, but the vessel containing his furniture
and library was destroyed by fire in Chesapeake Bay. The
personal effects of William Cranch were in this vessel and were
destroyed. It was during the year 1793 that the first book
1 Washington to the Commissioners, June 13, 1793. War Depart-
ment Manuscripts.
2Dalton was a native of Newburyport, Mass., and inherited
large means. He served his native state in various capacities and
represented it in the first congress as member of the senate.
Tobias Lear to James Greenleaf, Oct. 31, 1794. Greenleaf and
Law in the Federal City, p. 147. The same authority also states that
222 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
appeared relating to the.new District. It was written by
Tobias Lear, no doubt with the encouragement of Washington."
The closing days of the year 1793 must have been an encourag-
ing period for those interested in the new city, and the influence
of the change in the outlook of the enterprise brought about
by the transaction with Morris and Greenleaf extended over
the months of the coming year. A sidelight on what was
regarded as the future of the city is found in one of the clauses
of the second agreement with the syndicate, in which a restric-
tion is placed upon the range of choice in the selection of the
lots lying to the northeast of Massachusetts Avenue. By this
proviso the purchasers were excluded from selecting lots in “one
half of the squares which shall adjoin the spot that may be
appropriated for a national university which is expected to be
fixed on the northeast side of said avenue.” ”
In a letter to the commissioners, dated Dec. 1, 1793, Washing-
ton expresses his surprise that any allusion to such a measure
should have found its way into the agreement. “A university,”
he adds, “was not even contemplated by Major L’Enfant in the
plan of the city which was laid before Congress; taking its
origin from another source.”
Another indication of the prospective importance of the new
city was the establishment of a bank through the charter by
the Maryland legislature, Dec. 28, 1793, of the Bank of Co-
lumbia. ‘This was the second institution of the sort authorized
Greenleaf retired from the firm prior to 1798, in which year a plan of
liquidation was adopted as disclosed in a chancery bill asking for a
sale of the real estate above mentioned. The firm then consisted of
Tristam Dalton, Tobias Lear, Jonathan Hobson, John Coles and
Robert E. Griffith, the last three being non-residents. Centinel of
Liberty, June 3, 1800.
1 Observations on the River Potomac, the Country Adjacent, and the
City of Washington. New York,1793. It was published anonymously,
but Mr. Lear’s authorship is clearly established. At one time it was
attributed to Andrew Ellicott. A second edition with additional
matter was published in London in 1794.
2 This proposed location was the vicinity of the juncture of Massa-
chusetts Avenue and New York Avenue, between 6th and 9th streets, as
shown in a letter from the commissioners to Alexander White, Jan. 27,
1796. Commissioners’ Letter Book.
_ THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 223
by that state. As shown by the provision allowing the city
commissioners to subscribe for not more than 2000 of the
10,000 shares authorized, par value $100, the bank was largely
intended to facilitate the business of the city.!
Seven months previous, the Bank of Alexandria began
business, but that institution never came into very close re-
lations with city affairs. The Bank of Columbia was organized
for the special purpose of handling the paper of the commis-
sioners as well as of the lot buyers. There was a close com-
munity of interests between the city management and this in-
stitution, as indicated by the shares taken by the city as well as
by the personnel of the incorporators. For example, Samuel
Blodgett, the late supervisor of the city, became the first presi-
dent; William Deakins, Jr., the treasurer of the board, was an
incorporator, and so were Uriah Forrest, John Mason, James M.
Lingan, Benjamin Stoddert, William B. Magruder and Thomas
Peter. The bank was located at first at the northeast corner
of 29th and M streets, and after an existence of some eleven years
the erection was begun on the north side of M Street, between
Wisconsin Avenue and 34th Street, of a commodious bank build-
ing, which continued to be its home until its doors were closed.
The building was sold in the year 1827.2. By the close of the
year 1795, $40 had been actually paid in on each share, and
by an act of the Maryland legislature (Dec. 26, 1795), the
forfeiture clause of the original act for non-payment of in-
stalments was repealed, and partially paid shares were given
the same rights as to dividends as those fully paid.
1 The commissioners subscribed for 1053 shares, on which, according
to their report on city affairs to the president, Jan. 29, 1795, $30 per
share had been paid up to Oct. 1, 1794. If the payments required by
the charter were made, which were $10 per share annually after the
first six months following the election of directors, when $30 was re-
quired to be paid on each share, then the institution was organized in
January, 1794, a few days after the charter was granted. The extent to
which the bank was used by the commissioners is shown by a statement
in this report that there was due to the bank previous to Jan. 29, 1795,
the sum of $35,250 for treasurer’s notes discounted, which is within a few
hundred dollars equal to the commissioners’ capital stock subscription.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 10, Vol. 8.
224 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Another event of consequence occurred in the same month
in the starting of a newspaper in Georgetown. It is probable
the town had been then, for a few weeks, without a local paper,
as it is supposed the Georgetown Weekly Ledger ceased to
appear after October, 1793, thus closing its career as the second
paper to be printed in Georgetown, after an existence of about
two and one half years. The new candidate for public favor
was the Columbian Chronicle, printed every Tuesday and Friday
by Hanson and Priestley. The day in December, 1793, when it
made its initial bow is not known, and there is equal uncertainty
about the date of the last issue. The issue of Aug. 11, 1795,
bears the name of Samuel Hanson alone as publisher.?
For more than two years the affairs of the city had been in
the hands of the commissioners, who had received and expended
the money without any supervision except the very general one
which the president had been able to bestow. While the presi-
dent had given and continued to give a remarkable degree of
attention to city affairs, yet of course it was impossible to ex-
tend it thoroughly to the details. Now that two of the members
of the board, Messrs. Johnson and Stuart, intended to retire
from the city management in the coming fall, they evidently
felt that some inspection and auditing of their accounts should
be had.
When such a suggestion was made by the commissioners to the
president, the latter at once appointed David Ross of Bladens-
burg and Robert T. Hooe of Alexandria to perform this duty.
Their report was in the hands of the president on the 31st of
October, 1793. The accounts were found to be correct. It
was stated that the total receipts up to that time were $167,000,
and that of this amount only $16,000 had come from the sale
of the city property. The Maryland grant of $72,000 had been
paid, and of the Virginia grant of $120,000 all but one third had
1New Jersey Archives, Ist Series, Vol. XI. Edited by William
Nelson, who appends to the account of this paper the following note:
“Was Dr. Joseph Priestley one of the publishers? He arrived in
America in June, 1794, but proceeded directly to Northumberland,
Pa.’’ Harvard University Library file of this paper is Feb. 3, 1795,
No. 120, to May 10, 1796, No. 251.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS Pras
been received, including an order on that state counted as cash.
The cash on hand was $18,000.
The showing made by these figures was improved in the
course of a few weeks by the prospect opened up through the
agreement made with Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf. But
even with such an outlook, the disparity remained between what
was contemplated and the resources available. An instance
of this is to be found in a letter written some six months later
to Greenleaf and in reply to a suggestion that the commissioners
ought to include in their plans for the city some system of sewers,
or drains as they were termed. While admitting the health-
fulness and other advantages of such improvements, yet they
add, “ But set to build a city without funds, what can we do?” 2
There is, however, but little trace of discouragement or loss
of confidence to be found in the official conduct of those in
charge of city affairs. An evidence of adherence to a high
standard of city arrangement and living is to be found in a letter
written by the commissioners as early as June 25, 1793. It
was addressed to Daniel Carroll of Duddington, and stated that
“it is very desirable that many ornamental trees should be
left in the Mall. Fearing that cutting any part at present may
lead to consequences which cannot be repaired in many years, if
at all, we wish to treat with you for the purchase of all the trees
standing in the Mall, so that the whole may be left standing till
a settled design is formed and entered on for partially clearing
that part of the city.”’* As the pioneer in the long procession
of plans for city improvement, this suggestion has an interest,
but unfortunately it was not followed up, and Mr. Carroll and
other property owners removed the trees which were said to
have been thickly distributed over the site of the city.
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Oct. 31, 1793. There is no record
of another audit of the accounts of the commissioners until the board
was abolished in the year 1802.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book, July 10, 1794.
3 The same.
‘The right to the growing wood was expressly reserved to the
property holders in their deeds to the United States, except such as the
commissioners might select and pay for. But money neither for trees
VOL. I— Q
226 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
To this period may be traced the first appearance of the citi-
zens of the new city in another relation than that of land holders,
for the commissioners were “petitioned by sundry inhabitants
of the city of Washington requesting permission to erect a
temporary schoolhouse on one of the public lots.”* The
petition was granted, but there is no further record of the
school.
A change which was of consequence owing to the sensitive
sectional feeling in the city was the substitution of Washington
city for Georgetown in the head-line of the official letters of the
commissioners. This was begun in January, 1794, and on the
25th of March, 1794, it is recorded for the first time in the pro-
ceedings of the commissioners “at a meeting of the commis-
sioners in the city of Washington.” ”
As early as the middle of April, 1792, the commissioners de-
cided to build a house for the accommodation of their office
“near the place called the Church Square” or near the Great
Hotel, but there was some doubt of the propriety of such an
application of the public money, and furthermore it was con-
cluded to await the completion of the hotel building and locate
the office there.*
It is impossible to know whether or not the official letter-
head of that period designated the legal or the physical abode of
the commissioners or both. At any rate, the hotel building was
not occupied, and it is doubtful that the office was removed to
Washington for several years.
The latter part of January, 1794, marked the close of a year’s
service of Blodgett as supervisor, and the commissioners notified
him that the engagement would not be renewed. The dismissal
nor for drains or for hardly any other purpose except the actual needs
at the time was not available at that or at any other period in the
early days of the city.
1 Proceedings of the Commissioners, Oct. 16, 1793.
2 At that time the commissioners directed that $146 be paid ‘‘for
one year’s rent of Mr. Peter’s house for the use of an office for the com-
missioners ending the 26th of this month’? [March, 1794]. This
had reference, of course, to the office in Georgetown.
* Letter of Daniel Carroll, April 16, 1792. Also of Washington to
Gustavus Scott, July 4, 1796. State Department, D.C., Papers.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 227
was expressed in terms indicating appreciation of the value of
his assistance. But it was pointed out that the improbability
of his becoming a resident of the city, his private business and
especially that of the hotel lottery engaging his attention made
his longer continuance impracticable. He was told that his
affection for the city and his interest in its prosperity were
assurances to them that he would continue to render any aid
in his power.
Three months later, however, the esteem and consideration
expressed in this letter were exchanged for quite a different senti-
ment, as the commissioners then wrote “unhappily we have to
do with a man who has lost our confidence. Instead of certainty
we have to guess at the state of things.’’!
Washington also shared in this feeling towards Blodgett, for
he wrote on the 23d of January, 1794, to Commissioner Johnson :
“With respect to Mr. Blodgett, I have not hesitated on former
occasions to declare, and I think to the commissioners them-
selves, from the moment his conduct began to unfold itself, that
his appointment did not in my judgment answer the end which
had been contemplated. At first I was at a loss to account for
a conduct so distant from any idea which I had entertained of the
duties of a superintendent, but it appears evidently enough now,
that speculation has been his primary object from the beginning.
I wish you may have yet seen the worst features in Mr.
Blodgett’s conduct. . . . Little confidence I fear is placed in
Mr. Blodgett, and least where he is best known.” ?
The change had been as rapid as it was complete, for a few
months previously he had been in high favor and Washing-
ton records that he was accompanied by Blodgett at the time of
the sale of lots in the previous fall as he inspected the site of
the new city. But his lottery scheme, the drawing of which had
been begun the previous fall, was not then concluded, and in
addition he had announced his intention to start Federal Lottery
No. 2, in face of the change in the attitude of the president and
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, April 23, 1794.
2Washington to Thomas Johnson. Writings of Washington.
Ford.
228 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the commissioners, who now opposed what they formerly sanc-
tioned.! ;
It is difficult at this distance of time, and especially in the
dim light about the career of a man whose latter years were
clouded with reverses and the final defeat of his plans, to
understand fully the causes of such a complete change in
his standing as is here set forth. The ostensible cause of the
irritation felt both by Washington and the commissioners
was the second lottery scheme in face of the failure of the
first. At first favored, in a few months it met with sharp
repudiation from the city authorities, who saw in the term
“Federal Lottery No. 2”’ anattempt to give the enterprise an
official character.
Up to this time there is no record of an act of Blodgett in con-
nection with the city indicating that he was unscrupulous or
dishonest. All his undertakings in the new city were those of
a man of means, and also one of enthusiasm and large ideals.
His writings, mainly on economic subjects, clearly conveyed the
impression of these traits. At the same time his work does not
reveal the profound student nor the deep thinker. His mind
tended to discursiveness and broad generalizations, and in
that particular he was not fitted to handle practical affairs.
In his case when the dark days came, his qualities of
mind and methods rather served to add to his financial com-
plications, but there is no strong evidence to show deliberate
fraud on his part.
The scheme of Federal Lottery No. 2, as Blodgett clung to
the name, was formally made known in the summer of 1794,
1“‘The commissioners were no farther concerned in the hotel
lottery than to give a naked permission for it; and a second has lately
been advertised in Angel and Sullivan’s Baltimore paper under the
description No. 2. Whether it complies with the laws of this state
does not concern us, but as from the manner of the publication the
public may possibly infer that the lottery is raised with the approba-
tion of the commissioners and that they will attend to the conduct of
it, we think proper to declare that we have given no countenance to the
publishing or carrying the lottery nor will have anything to do with
the conduct of it.”” Notice to the publie signed by the commissioners,
Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, Aug. 23, 1794.
* THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 229
when it was announced the drawing would commence December
22 following.?
The prizes offered were houses to be built in Washington.
The first prize was to be a house to cost $30,000. They were
to be erected on two squares, four corner houses and two in
the centre. One location was the square to the south of the
capitol grounds which Mr. Blodgett had purchased. The
total amount to be raised was $400,000.
Acharacteristic feature of the prospectus of Lottery No. 2 was
the announcement that the surplus, after paying the prizes,
would be made a part of the fund intended for the national uni-
versity to be erected within the city of Washington.?
But another characteristic feature was a deed of trust given
by Blodgett on all his property in the city of Washington to
secure the payment of the prizes. This instrument was exe-
cuted July 7, 1795, while on the 28th of January of the previous
year Blodgett had conveyed to trustees the same property to
secure the payment of the prizes in Lottery No. 1. As Benjamin
Stoddert, one of the trustees named in the trust for Lottery
No. 2, explained in his sworn statement in the Bickley suit,
the trust he represented was only intended to apply to what
remained of the property after the first trust had been satisfied.
The hotel lottery No. 1 drawing was finally concluded in the
fall of 1794.3
Robert S. Bickley of Philadelphia was found to be the holder
of the ticket to which the first prize had fallen. He had paid $11
for his chance, although the price as given in the lottery prospec-
tus was $8, which indicates the enterprise had excited some
speculation. The hotel building was never completed, and the
holder of the prize ticket began suit in the year 1798 in Phila-
delphia, where Blodgett resided. The supreme court of that
1The Virginia Gazette and Richmond and Manchester Advertiser,
July 31, 1794.
2 The entire scheme of this lottery is to be found in the Columbian
Chronicle, Feb. 3, 1795. The drawing was never completed, although
there are references to it as late as the year 1799.
3 Federal Gazette, Oct. 21 and Nov. 9, 1794. The list of prizes is
given.
230 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
state on Dec. 26, 1801, rendered a judgment that Bickley was
entitled to the hotel building and also to $21,500, this sum being
the difference between the estimated value of the building as it
then stood and the stipulated value of the prize, which was
$50,000. In the year 1802 a suit was instituted in the circuit
court of the District to collect this judgment by the sale of the
property owned by Blodgett in the District. A decree of sale
was made Oct. 4, 1805. A sale of the property followed, but the
proceeds not being sufficient to satisfy the judgment, further
sales were decreed by the court, Nov. 5, 1813, which included
the balance of the Blodgett holdings.
Bickley became the purchaser, and all the property was deeded
to him. More than sixty years later suits were brought by
persons as the heirs of Blodgett, claiming title to property in
this city, but without result.!
The impression evidently prevailed at the time that the
hotel lottery was mismanaged, but this charge was denied by
Blodgett in a letter to Dr. Thornton, written about the time
his official connection with the city ceased. “There was never
a lottery in this country,” he writes, “for more than half the
amount. No, sir,” he continues in playful terms, “although
you understand the building of federal cities, capitols, anatomy,
painting, botany and the belle lettres and such trifles, give
me leave to assure you that you are not yet sufficiently in-
structed in the more noble and more exalted science of lottery
making.” ?
The lottery was undoubtedly, like all Blodgett’s schemes, on
an elaborate scale, as the total amount to be raised by it was
$350,000. It might also be added that the entire amount re-
ceived from the sale of tickets was to be given in prizes, and
“if the necessary expenses should be taken from the principal
prize,” the advertisement announced, “a quantity of excellent
1 A history of the Blodgett claim is to be found in a pamphlet, Land
Titles in the District of Columbia. Letter of M. Ashford, Esq., giv-
ing the record history of the Blodgett claim so called. [Washington,
1892.]
? Samuel Blodgett to Dr. Thornton, Jan. 5, 1794. J. Henley Smith
collection.
. THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 231
stone will be given sufficient to complete the whole building as
an indemnification.” !
The opening of the new year, 1794, was accompanied with
preparations for an active building season. In a sense not in-
tended by those who characterized the Potomac site in the first
congress as “a wilderness” some of the conditions of a remote
locality hampered the early operations in the new city. The
demand for building materials and workmen went beyond the
ordinary supplies of sucha place. As to the former the sand-
stone quarries at Acquia furnished the stone needed for the
exterior walls of the two public buildings, while the abundance
of clay suitable for brickmaking at the sites of the proposed
buildings supplied an easy solution of the brick problem. Lum-
ber and lime had to be brought to the spot, the latter mainly
from the north, while a contract made with General Henry Lee,
Light Horse Harry, the father of General Robert E. Lee,
brought from the hills of Stafford County, Va., supplies of white
oak and yellow poplar.
The most serious difficulty was getting mechanics, for as to
unskilled labor the services of slaves were purchased from the
owners living in the vicinity and throughout Maryland and
Virginia. But artisans were hard to get, and the commissioners
advertised in Europe and wrote to agents there. Jefferson,
with that wonderful versatility which balked at no subject,
pointed out to the commissioners in a letter the feasibility of
securing mechanics from Europe, but it was found later on, as
the flames of war overspread those countries, that emigration
was practically prohibited, as all able-bodied men were needed
at home.
As an encouragement to foreign mechanics to come to the
city, the commissioners offered to advance the passage-money,
to be repaid in instalments from the wages.
1In the sworn statement of Blodgett in the chancery suit of Robert
S. Bickley, circuit court of the District, Aug. 15, 1804, he states he
gave the commissioners a bond to secure the payment of the money
prizes and the money assigned for the hotel that might pass through
his hands, but denies that the bond was intended to meet the cost of
the hotel. However, this contention was not sustained by the courts.
232 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The use of slave labor whése hire was paid to the masters and
was exclusive of their keep, which was a charge upon the em-
ployer, made it necessary to provide shelter as well as food, and
also a hospital, so that early in the year 1794, a building of the
latter sort was erected on Judiciary Square. It is interesting
to note as an indication of the persistence of ideas as to uses of
a number of the public spaces, that the name Judiciary Square
is used in the official proceedings of the commissioners at this
time, although it was not formally set apart as a reservation
until some four years later.!
The overseer of the workmen was directed “to keep the yearly
hirelings at work from sunrise to sunset, particularly the ne-
goes.” During the month of August and the first half of Sep-
tember each man employed in getting out foundation stone at
the Key of all Keys was served daily with half a pint of whiskey.
In the summer of 1794, the commissioners reported that pri-
vate building had begun in the city. There is another evidence
that a centre of population was forming in the organization of
churches. In the spring of that year Rev. John Brackenridge
began his labors that soon resulted in gathering a congregation
that bore the name of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, and
which continued in existence until a short time after the year
1800. The location of the church building cannot be precisely
determined, but it was on the square bounded by F, G,
10th and 11th streets, N. W.? In the square to the east in
April, 1794, Rev. Anthony Caffry bought from the commis-
sioners lots on the north side of F Street, between 9th and
10th streets, where the first edifice of St. Patrick’s Catholic
1 Dr. John Crocker was appointed physician to attend the laborers,
then numbering about forty-six, at a compensation of $67 per annum.
Proceedings of Commissioners, April 15, 1794. The position evidently
had its attraction, for on May 2, 1797, applications were received for
this appointment from Drs. Wrenn, Gantt, Frederick May, W. B.
Williams and John Crocker. Dr. May was chosen, and the next year
his pay was changed from an annual lump sum to 50 cents per head
“‘or the usual charge for that class of patients and the usual charge for
medicines used.’’
?The Beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in the District of
Columbia. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 8.
- THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 233
Church was erected and, as is conjectured, shortly after the
site was secured.
Washington Parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church was
created by act of the Maryland legislature of Dec. 26, 1794,
and the vestry and rector of Christ Church were chosen May
25th following, services being held in a building on New Jersey
Avenue, near D Street, S. Et
An additional circumstance showing the sanguine hopes of
the period is found in the objections raised by the commissioners
in the spring of 1794 to the property holders planting their lands
in the vicinity of Greenleaf’s Point with corn “as tending to
obscure the view for possible purchasers.” They had no ob-
jection, however, to such a crop as oats. Until the city officials
acquired the land to be used for public purposes or had occasion
to dispose of public lots, the landowners were allowed to con-
tinue the cultivation of the soil.
The spring and summer of 1794 was the period of perhaps the
greatest activity on the part of Greenleaf in deveioping the
Washington city enterprise. It was then that he started a
number of improvements, mainly houses.”
The erection of buildings by Greenleaf was in compliance
1The One Hundredth Anniversary of Washington Parish. O. B.
Hallam. [Washington, 1895.] Among the members of the first vestry
were William Deakins, Jr., George Walker, John Templeman, Thomas
Johnson, Jr., and Gustavus Scott. Rev. George Ralph was the first
rector.
2 The principal works of this sort were as follows: four bouses on the
west side of 44 Street between N and O streets, S. W., known in later
years as Wheat Row; two on the south side of N between 43 and 6th
streets, S. W.; one at the southeast corner of 6th and N streets, S. W.,
while on the 6th Street front of the same square, four houses were
erected. A wharf was also built by Greenleaf at the foot of 6th
Street, S. W., the first in the locality, which became the principal water
front of the city. It was Greenleaf who began the erection of the Six
Buildings at the northeast corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 22d
Street, but before completion, this property was sold to Isaac Polock, by
whom the houses were completed. The Seven Buildings, another row
of residences, were begun about this time at the northwest corner of
Pennsylvania Avenue and 18th Street, by General Walter Stewart,
and were finished by Morris and Nicholson. Greenleaf and Law in
the Federal City, p. 139.
234 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
with the terms of the agreement, but to these operators this was
the least important phase of the enterprise. What was looked
upon as of more consequence was raising money based on the
Washington lots and finding a rapid market for the lots. With-
out apparently any help from the Washington property, the
first instalment of the purchase money, amounting to $68,571,
was paid promptly and deeds in fee simple for 857 lots were
granted by the commissioners, in accordance with the original
terms of a money payment for the property as a consideration
for the transfer of the title. Then a change was made in this
prudent policy and personal security was substituted for cash
or security based on the real estate. This important step was
not taken hastily, but only after careful deliberation as well as
correspondence with Washington. 4
The motive was an urgent one, as the supply of money to carry
on the affairs of the city depended on the success of a loan which
Greenleaf was endeavoring to negotiate in Holland, both on his
own account as well as for the city. When it was pointed out
that a loan could not be placed abroad unless deeds in fee for
the property could be offered for security, and also that the
selling operations of the syndicate would be facilitated by being
able to furnish to purchasers deeds in fee, and further that the
public would be secured by a bond signed by Morris, Nicholson
and Greenleaf, all hesitation disappeared.”
Once the bars were down, blocks of the city property were
placed in jeopardy, for the transaction, large in its totality, re-
tained that characteristic as to its details.
It was proposed by Greenleaf to borrow the great sum, for
those days, of $1,200,000, the proceeds to be shared by the com-
missioners and the members of the syndicate. So deeds in fee
were given to Greenleaf for two thousand lots, one half of the
1 A collection of letters, January to December, 1794, relating to finan-
cial transactions with Greenleaf, is to be found among the State Depart-
ment, D.C., Papers.
2 Modified agreement with Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf, substi-
tuting their personal security for real estate. Commissioners Pro-
ceedings, April 24, 1794. Printed in American State Papers, Vol. 1.
Miscellaneous, p. 224.
- THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 235
land to be credited to the syndicate purchase, the other half to
the portion remaining to the public. But as affording a forecast
of the disaster that eventually came, the efforts to float a loan
of that size in Holland resulted only in securing about one
tenth, or $120,000, all of which was absorbed by the necessities
of the operators. The city got no money, but the certificates
of the lots given for the city’s share of the loan were returned.
The certificates for the other thousand lots were used to secure
what was borrowed, and also some passed by sale of the syndi-
cate to individuals.
It was Greenleaf’s purpose to go to Europe to negotiate the
loan and also to enter upon his duties as United States consul
at Amsterdam, to which position he had been appointed in
the preceding spring. But he did not leave the country, as
apparently the events involving his personal fortunes were
moving towards their destined end with such rapidity that it
was impossible. The position he was appointed to fill remained
vacant for over a year, but in the fall of 1794, when it was quite
evident that Greenleaf was no longer available, Sylvanus Bourne
was appointed vice consul. It was through Mr. Bourne that the
later negotiations for a loan were conducted. The conditions
in Europe were unfavorable to operations of that sort and the
prospects of the city were clouded, as was the case in subsequent
years, due to the disturbances of and following the French revo-
lution.
That nothing was left undone on the part of Greenleaf to
facilitate the negotiation of a loan is quite evident from the
records, but his anxiety led him to a course which, if not
unscrupulous in intent, was certainly careless of the terms of
a contract. In the fall of 1794 the commissioners called Green-
leaf’s attention to the circumstance that his deed of city lots
to Dutch capitalists was without the condition of improvement
of every third lot sold before June 1, 1796, and also that he had
exceeded his authority in making the city and the syndicate
jointly responsible for the proposed loan. As illustrating an
ingenious method of expanding credit may be cited the sugges-
tion made to the commissioners by Greenleaf and accepted by
236 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
them to anticipate the paymént of the second instalment of the
purchase money of the syndicate due the following May by
accepting notes of Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf. By this
device the syndicate secured 857 additional lots in fee simple,
while the commissioners placed the notes in the Bank of Co-
lumbia. “But under protest as they think cash should be
given.” }
Greenleaf’s fertility of resource in this particular is further
illustrated by another suggestion to the city authorities that
money be raised on the prospect of the third and last instalment
of the grant from the state of Virginia, due in January, 1795,
being paid at that time. The commissioners thought well of
the proposal, but could find no one to advance the money.
It is quite evident there was no distrust at this period of
the credit of the three men, which at the outset was classed gilt-
edged, or any suspicion of their financial soundness. But the
year 1794 was one of rapid changes in their prospects, for as the
condition of the money markets tightened, its grip was felt first
and more severely by those who were in debt. As these bold and
extensive operators sank deeper in the mass of their obligations,
their attempts to extricate themselves resembled the frantic
efforts of men in deadly peril. An illustration of this phase is
found in their drawing on their agent in Europe for the proceeds
of a loan which had been merely undertaken by Dutch bankers
but had not then been offered for public subscription.
The direction of the first improvements in the city was de-
termined by the ideas Greenleaf had of the future development.
It was not an original idea with him that the city would centre
about the water front, but rather a conception born of a period
when water transportation was the important medium of com-
merce. Jefferson had the same notion, and it was the land in
the vicinity of the Eastern Branch and the Potomac that was
first laid out in building lots. Greenleaf stipulated in his selec-
tion of public lots that 4500 should be taken from the southwest
of Massachusetts Avenue and 1500 from the northeast of that
thoroughfare. He was excluded from selecting water lots or
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Oct. 18, 1794.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 237
’
lots having a water front, and such lots were from the outset put
in a separate class and sold by the front foot instead of by the
square foot, as was done elsewhere in the city. It is also to be
noted that his largest purchases from individuals were from
Daniel Carroll and Notley Young, both of whom had exten-
sive holdings on and near the water.
The expected change in the personnel of the board of commis-
sioners was completed by the middle of September, 1794, after
more than a year since the president had been notified by
Messrs. Johnson and Stuart of their wish to be relieved of their
duties.}
The delay was due apparently to the difficulty the president
experienced in finding suitable men. As early as January, in a
letter to Mr. Johnson expressing his regret that his decision to
leave the board remained unchanged, he added, ‘I would thank
you for naming (which may be in confidence) such persons as
you shall think best qualified to succeed you in this interesting
and important business. My limited acquaintance with con-
venient characters does not enable me to do it to my satisfaction,
and even among those which might happen to present themselves
to my view, there might be local circumstances in the way un-
known to me, which might render them ineligible in the opinion
of the public, for the impartial execution of the trust imposed.
Were it not for this, I presume proper characters might be had
in Georgetown or among the proprietors of the city, but how
far their connections with or jarring interests therein, may be a
let to such appointments is worthy of that consideration which
you can so well appreciate for my information.” ”
The appointments to fill the vacancies were Gustavus Scott
of Maryland and Dr. William Thornton, so that in both in-
stances Washington avoided the anticipated complications in the
selection of men who were too closely identified with District
affairs. However, in the case of Mr. Scott the president con-
1 Gustavus Scott’s commission was dated Aug. 23, 1794, and that
of Dr. William Thornton, Sept. 12, 1794.
2 Washington to Thomas Johnson. Philadelphia, Jan. 23, 1794.
Writings of Washington. Ford.
238 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tinued the policy of selecting those familiar with the locality
that guided him in the appointment of the first board, for Mr.
Scott was a native of Prince William County, Va., which ad-
joined on the west and south Fairfax County, of which Alex-
andria was the county seat.
His father, who was an Episcopal minister, had come from
Scotland and settled in that part of Virginia in 1730. Mr.
Scott’s birthplace, where he continued to have property in-
terests, was much nearer the new city than the home of Thomas
Johnson. He was educated at Aberdeen, Scotland, and began
his career as a lawyer in Virginia, subsequently removing to
Maryland, where he became actively identified with the Ameri-
can cause when the troubles with the mother country arose.
He served on the public committees of the revolutionary period
and was a member of the convention that framed the constitu-
tion of Maryland in 1776. He served in the assembly of that
state, and also was sent as a delegate to the continental con-
gress in 1784. He was one of the organizers of the Potomac
Canal Company, of which Washington was president. At
the time of his appointment he was living in Baltimore.
The appointment of Dr. Thornton was the beginning of
a service for the new city of a man who, perhaps, with the
exception of Mr. Jefferson, was the most versatile of all who
were identified with this period in the history of the nation’s
capital.?
By these appointments the high character of the men in-
trusted with the direction of city affairs was fully maintained.
A new régime was begun. Closer personal attention was
given to the business that came before the board, as well as
greater order and regularity in the methods. The gradual ex-
1 In a manuscript fragment of what was apparently a biographical
sketch of her husband, Mrs. Thornton writes, ‘‘philosophy, politics,
finance, astronomy, medicine, botany, painting, poetry, religion,
agriculture,—in short, all subjects by turns occupied his active and
indefatigable mind.” In another paper, Mrs. Thornton expresses the
opinion that his eager curiosity for all kinds of knowledge prevented
the concentration that would have led to prominence in any one
department. J. Henley Smith collection.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 239
>
pansion of the scope of city affairs no doubt had much to do
with this change.
The growth of the business is brought out by contrasting
the expenditures made from the beginning to the fall of 1793,
as shown in the report of the auditors to the president, with
those given in the report of the finances of the city to Oct. 1,
1794, by the commissioners to the president Jan. 29, 1795.
During the latter period of a year nearly as much had been
spent as during the entire previous period of more than two
years. As the commissioners observe in their comments
attached to this report, “The balances due from lots sold are
not included in above, as they will probably be absorbed by what
is due to the original proprietors.”” Their conclusion is that
the remaining funds of the city at the present prices of property
must fall very short of accomplishing the objects in view.
They therefore suggest a loan as the best means of avoiding the
necessity of placing the property on the market under disad-
vantageous circumstances.
No doubt an important qualification that Dr. Thornton
possessed for the office, in the mind of the president, was the
fact of his residence in the new district, where he had been es-
tablished some six months or more. The president had been
urging the importance of constant personal attention on the
part of the members of the board to the business of the city,
and he had on several occasions expressed the opinion that the
commissioners ought to live in the city, and in fact practically
made it a condition of Mr. Scott’s appointment.’
1 There is no suggestion at this time of possible complications aris-
ing from Dr. Thornton being both the designer of the plan of the capi-
tol and also as a member of the board, with authority to determine
and direct the execution of that plan. In fact, no trouble due to this
source arose, as the same disputes and conflicts between the various
architects in charge of that structure and the board relative to dif-
ference of opinion about various features of the plan would have
occurred under other circumstances. The letters and papers on this
subject in the Thornton Papers, J. Henley Smith collection, show very
clearly that at one time the detailed drawings for the capitol were
furnished by Dr. Thorntun and then at others by the architect placed
in charge of the work as superintendent.
240 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Dr. Thornton owned and occupied a house in Georgetown in
the desirable residence section, on the high bluff overlooking the
Potomac on M Street west of 32d Street. Mr. Carroll, who
remained on the board for another year, continued his home
at Forest Glen. But Mr. Scott, who at first lived on his farm,
Strawberry Vale, in Virginia, about nine miles from Georgetown,’
purchased in 1795, a few monthsafter his appointment, the place
owned and occupied by Anthony Holmead, and known as Rock
Hill. This property lay just west of the bounds of the city,
between Florida Avenue and Rock Creek. When in later
years it passed into the possession of Joel Barlow, the name
was changed to Kalorama.
Almost at the outset, the new board decided to sit during
the winter months two days in each week, from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M.,
and the balance of the year three days each week. Rules for
the conduct of the meetings were adopted for the first time. It
was also decided to keep the accounts in dollars and cents
instead of in Maryland pounds and shillings.
The most definite suggestion that has been preserved of the
location of the commissioner’s office in the city is an indirect
allusion to it in a letter written by the commissioners to William
Rhodes, Dec. 10, 1801, in which they speak of a stable he was
erecting “near this office”; and also it is added “near the rec-
ord office of Washington County.” This latter office was “in
the house immediately opposite Mr. Rhodes’s Hotel,” and the
latter at that time was at the northeast corner of 15th and
F streets, N. W.22
Progress had been made in the survey of the city, although
not without considerable friction in the surveying force and
with the commissioners. As the result of the latter Isaac
Briggs was dismissed Nov. 2, 1793, and Benjamin and Joseph
Ellicott Jan. 28, 1794, James R. Dermott, Alexander Ral-
‘ Notice of Elias B. Caldwell, administrator of the estate of Gusta-
vus Scott, advertising for sale a farm called Strawberry Vale about
nine miles from Georgetown. Intelligencer, Oct. 7, 1801.
? Proceedings of Commissioners, Feb. 18,1795. The Maryland pound
was equal to $2.66 in United States currency.
3 Centinel of Liberty, March 27, 1801.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 241
ston, George Fenwick and Thomas Freeman continuing the
work. The latter in a letter to the commissioners, dated Jan. 1,
1795, states that previous to his appointment, which was on
March 25, 1794, the portion of the city surveyed lay south of
K, Gand C streets, N., from Rock Creek to the Eastern Branch.
The survey at the date of his letter, he adds, is extended from the
river on the west side of the capitol to P Street, N., and on the
east side of the capitol to C Street, N., “All that portion to the
north of these lines remains to be surveyed, which is one fifth
of the whole.”
During the summer of 1794 the persistence of Hallet in carry-
ing out his own plans, rather than those of Thornton, brought
to a crisis his relations with the capitol building, and he was
discharged Nov. 15, 1794.1
Nearly a year elapsed before another appointment of an
architect to superintend the building of the capitol was made,
and in that interval the work went on under the direction of
Mr. Hoban, the drawings being supplied by Dr. Thornton, who
was then serving his first year as a member of the board of com-
missioners.”
In the fall of 1794, as soon as he heard of Hallet’s discharge,
1 Commissioners to Hailet, June 26, 1794. Commissioners’ Letter
Book. In this letter the commissioners clearly state that no altera-
tions were to be permitted in the accepted plan without the consent of
the president and the commissioners and that Hallet was employed in
that work under Mr. Hoban, who had been made superintendent of
that building as well as of the president’s house.
2.n a letter dated April 17, 1799, from Messrs. Scott and White,
the associates of Dr. Thornton on the board of commissioners, he is
informed that the original advertisement for plans requires that the
author should furnish the necessary drawings, ‘“‘and your letter of the
17th of Noy. 1795 admits the principle.’’ He is requested to state
whether he will furnish the drawings as specified in a letter from Hoban
to the commissioners, dated April 16, 1799, namely, for the east entrance
and stairway, the elliptic staircase, the back staircase, the representa-
tives’ chamber and the senate chamber. In his reply of the same date,
Dr. Thornton informs his colleagues that he is willing to furnish the
drawings. . ‘‘It was made a part,’’ he added, ‘‘of the duties of the late
superintendent [George Hadfield] to furnish detailed drawings subject
to the approval of the board and I presume the board still considered
that a part of his duties.’”’ J. Henley Smith Papers.
VOL. I—R
242 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
John Trumbull, the minister to England, wrote to the commis-
sioners, recommending George Hadfield, an architect in England
for the place. This appointment was made in the fall of the
following year.
The straitened state of the finances of the city led to the
abandonment in the year 1795 of the undertaking to connect by
a canal the Tiber and St. James creeks. Some 27,000 cubic
yards of earth had been removed, at a cost of $5170, and then
the trench was left unfinished. Some years later the work
was completed, and the Washington City Canal came into exist-
ence, but it was due to private enterprise. The intention of
the commissioners to erect a bridge over the Tiber at 43 Street
was not carried out. It is probable that 7th Street was looked
upon as better suited. At any rate one was placed there, as
well as such a structure over James Creek on the line of N
Street, S. W.
But the eastern section of the city was placed in more direct
contact with its Maryland neighbors by establishing a ferry,
at the foot of South Capitol Street, that was known as the
lower ferry.!
A public work that as planned was to make no drain upon the
public funds was the rebuilding of the bridge over Rock Creek
on the line of K Street. The structure there was found to be
insecure, owing to “unskilful construction,” as the commis-
sioners characterized it, and early in the year 1795 an agreement
was made with the owners of the land adjoining the bridge and
the causeway to take down the centre arch and erect a draw-
bridge. The cost was to be met from the proceeds of the sale
of the lots along the causeway deeded to the commissioners
at the outset of this enterprise in consideration of the improve-
ment to be made, but which now the commissioners deeded back
to certain of the landowners who undertook to supply a bridge
in the place of the ruined structure.”
These men were no more successful in turning these causeway
lots into money than were the commissioners, and in consequence
1 Columbian Chronicle, May 12, 1795.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Jan. 9, 1795.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 243
the K Street bridge was left for the time in ruins and a wooden
bridge was built by the commissioners with a draw on the line
of M Street, occupying nearly the site of the first bridge erected
some six years previously by the Georgetown people. The
loss to the city by the failure of the Harbaugh bridge was
secured as far as was possible by getting from that luckless
experimenter, for it appears the bridge was after a plan of his
own invention, a mortgage on his property in the city.
An attempt was made at this period to revive interest in the
project of erecting a bridge over the Potomac, presumably
where one was subsequently built near the Little Falls. A
charter had been procured from the Maryland legislature
(acts of Dec. 29 and 30, 1791) for the Georgetown Bridge
Company, but beyond inviting subscriptions nothing had been
done. Now four years later three of the five incorporators,
William Deakins, Jr., James M. Lingan and Uriah Forrest not
joining, gave notice that books for receiving subscriptions
would be opened July Ist, 1795, for 400 shares at $200 per
share. It was further stated that Timothy Palmer, “an artist
eminently distinguished, has undertaken the erection of the
bridge.” In less than two years the work was completed.!
It was necessary to do more than build a bridge, as there were
no roads leading to the chosen site, and therefore it may be con-
cluded an entirely new traffic centre was created. The Mary-
land legislature gave three of the directors? authority to con-
demn land for a road from the bridge to Georgetown. As it
followed the river, entering Georgetown at the foot of M Street,
it became known as the river road and later as the town road.
A road was also opened up through Alexandria County.
At this time too the commissioners did away with the practice
of erecting the public buildings by day work under their im-
mediate supervision and instead adopted the contract system.
The year 1794 had nearly closed and the Greenleaf-Morris
syndicate had been interested in Washington property for more
1 Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, March 12, 1795.
2 Maryland Law, Dec. 24, 1795. John Templeman, James M.
Lingan and Thomas Clark.
244 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
than a year before they began to dispose of their holdings. The
first buyer to appear was General Walter Stewart of Philadelphia,
a revolutionary soldier and a friend of Robert Morris, and
associated with Samuel Blodgett in the Philadelphia insurance
company. He did not confine his purchases to the property
of the syndicate. In November, 1794, he wrote to the com-
missioners relative to several squares which he contemplated
buying. One of these was the square bounded by 14th, 15th
and H streets and New York Avenue. This particular ground,
the commissioners informed him, they considered the most
valuable in the city.
General Stewart acquired from Greenleaf ground at the
northwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street,
N. W., where the Seven Buildings were erected. But his opera-
tions in this city came to an end by his death in the year 1796.
In the meanwhile Greenleaf, whose home and business were
in New York City, made the acquaintance of Thomas Law,
who arrived in this country from England in the summer of
that year from a distinguished career in the Indian service.
He was well connected, his father having been a bishop in the
English Church and one of his brothers having attained the
same position. Another brother was Lord Ellenborough, who
was the leading counsel for Warren Hastings. Thomas Law
himself had spent more than half of his thirty-seven years
in India, where he had been successful as an administrator in
the Indian service and had also written several books 6n topics
connected with Indian affairs. He had a fortune of about
$250,000, and with that money and his three sons he came to
America, leaving England because of disapproval of the course of
the government in his own case and also of the war with France.”
1Jn the statement of lots sold by the commissioners appended to
the report of a select committee, Feb. 23, 1825, 18th Cong., 2d Sess.,
No. 90, the sale of the above-mentioned square to General Stewart,
together with the square bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, H, 19th and
20th streets, and the square bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, I, 21st
and 22d streets is recorded. The price paid for each lot in the three
squares in February, 1795, was $636.54.
? Many details of Thomas Law’s life are found in a publication en-
- THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 245
William Mayne Duncanson of England was with Mr. Law
on his voyage to this country and also took up his residence in
New York. In December, Mr. Law bought from Mr. Greenleaf
lots in the city of Washington, or rather secured an option of
purchase, agreeing to pay about $133,000. He came to Washing-
ton, Feb. 23, 1795, to inspect the property, and was so much im-
pressed that he took up the option and made the transaction a
purchase.!
At the same time Mr. Duncanson, who had come on from
New York with Mr. Law, and who dined in company with
Mr. Law and Mr. Cranch with Notley Young at the latter’s
residence on G Street, S. W., determined to invest some of
his fortune in real estate in the new city. His purchases
and loans there eventually amounted to between $60,000 and
$70,000.
Pending the completion of the selection of the lots and the
vesting in him of the fee simple title, Mr. Law paid over the
purchase money, but was wise enough or fortunate enough to get
from the syndicate a mortgage on such of their property as
had been conveyed in fee simple to it, so that when the crisis
came in its affairs, Mr. Law was the only one of the purchasers
under them that was saved from the fate of being placed in
the hopeless situation of a general unsecured creditor.
This transaction with Mr. Law was second only in magnitude
titled A Reply to Certain Insinuations published as an Articie in the
Fifty-eighth Number of the Quarterly Review. Thomas Law. Washing-
ton, 1824. Also Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City.
1Mr. Law’s recollection of the city as he first saw it was recorded
some years later in a species of autobiography, still unpublished, the
manuscript of which is in possession of Mrs. Kirby Flower Smith of
Baltimore, a great grandchild of Mr. Law. Extracts from these notes
are in Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 255. Mr. Law writes:
“Being now the oldest inhabitant, it may be useful to give a brief
history of the city since my arrival here. I put up in Georgetown be-
cause there was only one little tavern in the city, which then con-
tained only three or four houses belonging to the owners of estates.’’
In June, 1794, the commissioners record that private building is
beginning in the city, but if Mr. Law’s recollecticn of what he saw the
following spring can be relied on, these operations must have been
rather limited.
246 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
to that of Morris and Greenleaf with the commissioners. But
the feature of the Law purchase that appeared to make the
deepest contemporary impression was that he paid $266 each
for 500 lots which had been bought a little over a year pre-
viously for $80 per lot. However, such profits did not have the
usual effect in creating a buying mania, and hence may be
gathered some notion of the current financial state which then
and for some years later contributed in no small degree to clog
the operations of the city. At the very time that Mr. Law
closed his great transaction in city property, the efforts to place
a loan either at home or abroad had utterly failed.
Washington’s view of the transaction made by Morris and
Greenleaf with Mr. Law was expressed in a personal letter to
Daniel Carroll, the commissioner, a few weeks after it had been
completed. “You will recollect, no doubt,” he writes, “that I
yielded my assent to Mr. Greenleaf’s first proposition to pur-
chase a number of lots in the Federal City (although I thought
the price he offered for them was too low) because at that time
the business seemed to be in a stagnant state and something
was necessary to put the wheels in motion again. To the
second sale which was made to him, my repugnance was greater,
inasmuch as the necessity for making it was not so apparent
to my view — and because another thing had become quite
evident, viz., that he was speculating deeply, was aiming to
monopolize deeply, and was thereby laying the foundation of
immense profit to himself and those with whom he was con-
cerned.” !
Mr. Law, with an ardor that was evidently characteristic, went
into the Washington business in no half-hearted way. Hewasa
man of convictions, and with a special regard for these creatures
of his mind; an egotist, also inclined to be dictatorial, his traits
led him to be regarded as eccentric. In spite, however, of such
shortcomings he was an efficient factor in the upbuilding
of the city, where he spent over sixty years, and especially in the
early period he contributed materially to its progress.
Mr. Law’s selection of lots in his purchase was confined to
1 Quoted in Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 92.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 247
the section of the city south of the capitol to the Eastern
Branch, following in this respect the judgment of the members
of the syndicate. From being an owner of property in that
section, he rapidly passed to the relation of being its advocate,
and held that the true future of the city lay in the develop-
ment of the commercial opportunities afforded by the Eastern
Branch and the Potomac. He had been in the city but a little
more than four months when he announced his purpose to
establish an agency house for East India trade in connection
with James Barry, an Irishman whom Mr. Law had met in
New York. At that time, he declared that the commissioners
“should have been obliged to settle near the Capitol, whereas
unfortunately they have made purchases near Georgetown. . . .
The city can only be made by the Eastern Branch.” 4
The Barry wharf at the foot of New Jersey Avenue was well
under way by the fall of 1795, and there it was hoped an exten-
sive foreign trade would be centred. At the opening of the
year 1795 Lewis Deblois had a wharf at the foot of South
Capitol Street, while later on he built for Mr. Nicholson a wharf
between 11th and 12th streets, S. E. The commissioners also
had a wharf in the vicinity of the foot of New Jersey Avenue.
Then there was the Greenleaf wharf at the foot of 6th Street
southwest, while just to the north and near the foot of 7th Street
was a wharf built by Notley Young under a license issued by the
commissioners in March, 1795. The two last mentioned are the
only ones shown on the Washington or Tin Case map com-
pleted in the year 1797. There is nothing to indicate the com-
missioners’ wharf between 21st and 22d streets or that of Lear
and Company which had by that time been erected at the foot
of G Street.
The development of what has since come to be the principal
commercial water front of the city, namely, the stretch from
the railway bridge to the government reservation of the War
1 Law to Greenleaf, July 4, 1795. Greenleaf and Law in the Fed-
eral City, p. 107.
Mr. Law may be regarded as the father of the later phase of the
jealousy between these two sections that was first given expression
when the site of the city was being chosen.
248 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
College, or from 14th to 6th streets, was in part at least retarded
by difficulties of a physical nature. Along this entire stretch
extended a bluff varying from fifteen to twenty-five feet in
height above the river. The only way of reaching the wharves
was by a steep descent. Up to the breaking out of the civil
war, 6th and 11th streets were the only thoroughfares open'to the
river. Water Street was covered with water.!
At this time an important question was raised as to the treat-
ment of the water front, and more especially whether the street
bounding the edge of the water, as shown on the engraved plan,
should be actually laid out. In the event a water street was
decided upon, the use of the wharves would be restricted and
the wharf owners put to additional expense by a requirement
restricting buildings at the wharf to the land side of such a
street. The authority to regulate the building of wharves had
been given the commissioners by the Maryland act of 1791, and
they proceeded to frame a regulation which was completed
July 20, 1795.2. They were fully’aware of the possibility of
checking the development of the business of the city by insisting
upon requirements that would add to the expense of merchants.
The application of Mr. Barry to build a wharf with warehouses
on it was what brought the question to anissue, and, as Mr. Law
was interested with Mr. Barry, he was soon in his impetuous way
conducting the first of his acrimonious attacks on the city
officials. He wrote to Mr. Morris on this subject and also took
the opportunity of charging the commissioners with partiality
for the Georgetown end of the city and of slowness in attending
to the public business. Mr. Morris endeavored to pacify the
irate East Indian and counselled moderation, which was in
accordance with his usual policy of conducting business, and
at this juncture in his affairs a contrary course, he recognized,
would be injurious. He told Mr. Law very plainly that he
said nothing to the president about his charges against the
1 Potomac Flats Case, Vol. 1, pp. 139, 143, 201, 273, 1427 and 2066.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, also a letter to the president,
July 24, 1795, explaining the reason for this action and its scope.
Commissioners’ Letter Book.
THE EARLY REALTY OPERATORS 249
commissioners for the reason that they were general and not
specific.?
As to the wharf regulations, Mr. Morris states he told the
president it would be in vain to attempt to prohibit the building
of warehouses on wharves, as the same thing was attempted
when the city of Philadelphia was first laid out, but the plan
could not be carried out “as interest got the better of all other
considerations.” ?
The regulation itself was open to the same criticism as the
charges against the commissioners, as it was so general
that the commissioners themselves were uncertain whether
the proprietors of wharves were obliged to fill up and make a
street sixty feet wide between the last building on their wharves
and the channel or only to leave a space of sixty feet to be there-
after made and at the expense of the public.’
The commissioners, in their regulation of July 20, 1795, re-
peated the provision of the current Maryland law that no wharf
should be built that would interfere with the navigation of
the river, and then provided for the local situation by stipulating
that a space should be left on the water front where the general
plan of the city required it, and where no street or streets inter-
sect a wharf site to leave a space of sixty feet for a street at
the termination of every three hundred feet of made ground.
The commissioners, viewing the matter from a practical
standpoint, were doubtful if the expense of building wharves
would be undertaken unless warehouses could be erected upon
them. They proposed, however, that a street be left between
the last building on the wharf and the end of the wharf. They
1 A few days earlier James Greenleaf had formally presented similar
charges to the secretary of state, Edmund Randolph, which were
referred to the commissioners, and a complete denial and explanation
were made by these officials. The entire correspondence is given
in Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 116 and pp. 153-156.
2 Morris to Law, July 18, 1795. Greenleaf and Law in the Federal
City, p. 116.
3 Commissioners to Alexander White, Aug. 12, 1795. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book. The official action and correspondence of the
commissioners at this time relative to wharves are given in full in the
Potomac Flats Case, Vol. VI, pp. 180-189.
250 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
were, however, of the opinion such restriction would probably
retard for some time the improvement of the water property
of the city, especially as it was “situated between two growing
commercial towns already possessed of considerable trade and
population and where proprietors are left to build as fancy or
interest may dictate.” The commissioners add “that instances
have occurred of the restive spirit excited by the restriction to
build of brick or stone.” 4
“You will observe,” write the commissioners to Alexander
White, Aug. 12, 1795, who was then in Philadelphia, in regard
to the regulation as to wharves received from the president
with his approval, “that when the President comes to sum up
the leading regulations necessary to be published that he totally
omits a street between the termination of the wharves and
channel.” Thus the president did what the commissioners
hesitated to recommend.
With this general attempt at regulation, leaving undetermined
the important question of a street between the city squares
and the wharf property and the right of such abutting property
to wharfage privileges, the entire subject of the water front was
dropped and it was not taken up again except at intervals
during years, and even then no final decision was reached.
So it remained a vexed, uncertain question, until the decision in
the Potomac Flats Case in 1903 affirmed existence of a street
along the water front in the plan of the city and the ownership of
the United States of the entire Potomac water front from the end
of Greenleaf Point to the southwest angle of the square south
of Square 12 near C Street, N. W.?
1 Commissioners to the President, July 24, 1795. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
2 United States vs. Morris, 23 W. L. R., 745. As early as 1797,
Nicholas King, the city surveyor, in a letter to the commissioners,
observed “‘ the plan of the city where it abounds on the river does not
seem to have been at all attended to, but wherever the squares came
to its present banks, they stopped, or their course and extent were left
to chance.”?
CHAPTER X
WASHINGTON’S PLAN TO FOUND A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Tue sentiment in favor of the establishment in this country
of a national university was given its first definite form and
direction by the action of Washington. He not only declared
himself in favor of its location in the federal city, but gave what
he considered a substantial gift in fifty shares of the Potomac
Company.’ The letter to the commissioners announcing his in-
tentions was dated Jan. 28, 1795, and the latter under date of
Feb. 18, 1795, informed him that subject to his approval they
had chosen a piece of ground as a site for a national uni-
versity. His approval was given the following year.”
As described by Washington in his letter to the commis-
sioners, the site that met with his preference was the one
bounded by 23d and 25th and E streets, N. W., the Po-
tomac at that day forming the southern boundary. At the
present day, owing in part to the reclamation of the land on the
river in that locality, the southern line of the property is a
short distance north of B Street if prolonged through Potomac
Park.’ The president in the course of the letter to the city au-
1**T have not the smallest doubt that this donation (when the navi-
gation is in complete operation, which it will be in less than two years)
will amount to 1200 or 1500 pounds sterling a year and become
a rapidly increasing fund.’ Washington to Alexander Hamilton.
Works of Hamilton, Vol. VI, p. 147. The par value of each share was
$444.
2 Washington to the Commissioners, Oct. 21, 1796. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book. Also State Department, D.C., Papers.
3 As the public appropriations when made were distinguished only
by numerals, it is difficult to determine the identity by the names
which were bestowed on them (mainly through unofficial sources),
indicating in most cases a possible future use. In the case of the
university site, however, besides Washington’s description, the com-
missioners in a memorial to congress of Dee. 12, 1796, gave the area
251
252 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
thorities, after expressing his preference for a site for the pro-
posed university, added that if there is room, part of the ground
might be used for a botanical garden, which is the earliest ref-
erence to such a provision in the new city. But if the site pro-
posed, he continues, is inadequate, the square on L’Enfant’s
plan designed for a marine hospital might be appropriated. “‘If
neither will admit of it, I see no solid objection against com-
mencing the work within the president’s square, but not to be
occupied for this purpose beyond a certain period,’ when, he
adds, provision may be made to improve it into pleasure
walks, ete.
Eight years before Washington took this decisive step, it was
proposed by Madison in the convention that adopted the con-
stitution to include among the enumerated powers of congress
the power “to establish and provide for a national university
at the seat of government,” but it was pointed out that such a
provision would be a superfluity, as it was comprehended within
the scope of the “exclusive legislation” vested in congress over
the federal district. The amendment was therefore not adopted.
There was more or less discussion of the subject in the news-
papers of the day, and Washington touched upon it in his address
at the second session of the first congress. During the fall of
1794, Jefferson broached a plan for transplanting the faculty
of the university at Geneva to this country and corresponded
with Washington in regard to it, and then Washington in more
positive terms expressed himself as favoring a national institu-
tion located at the seat of national government.!
of the site approved by the president for the university as nineteen
acres, one rood and twenty-one perches. The only other reservation
of that size is Judiciary Square, but the identity of that public space
is clearly established. For years the university site was occupied by
the Naval Observatory Building, and of late years the old structure
with new buildings has been used by the Naval Medical School Hos-
pital.
1 Washington in writing to John Adams in regard to the Geneva
scheme, Nov. 27, 1794, states, ‘‘That a national university in this
country is a thing to be desired, has always been my decided opinion,
and the appropriation of grounds and funds for it in the federal city
has long been contemplated and talked of.’’
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 253
Finally, when a site was selected in the federal city, there
were two men identified with the new city, who threw them-
selves with vigor into the work of advancing the project. One
of these was Samuel Blodgett, an early advocate, if not the
earliest, to come out in favor of such an institution, and Dr.
William Thornton, to whom, as might naturally be expected,
such an undertaking made a special appeal. In this particular,
as well as others, Dr. Thornton and Mr. Blodgett found a com-
mon ground of sympathy, and it is not surprising that their
association continued under terms of great intimacy for a
number of years. The two men had many similar tastes and
views and both possessed a lively interest and curiosity in
regard to all matters of human knowledge.!
At the time the site for the university was chosen, according
to the recollection of Mr. Law, it was the intention “to have the
Navy Yard” on Rock Creek, and “the Marine Barracks were
laid out on its banks and the Marine Corps encamped there.” ?
It also appears that at one time the university site was in-
tended to be used as a military post, although such a use of
Greenleaf’s Point was early contemplated.’
The university movement was given a further impetus by a
memorial from the commissioners to congress, dated Nov. 21,
1796, in which was set forth the president’s action, both as to
the selection of a site and his donation of Potomac Company
stock and suggesting that a law be enacted authorizing the
proper persons to receive donations of money and land for
the proposed establishment. The memorial was referred to a
committee and was reported favorably to the house by Mr.
1A useful summary of the efforts made for nearly a century by the
advocates of a national university in Washington is to be found in
The National University, John W. Hoyt, Washington, 1892.
2From the Law Manuscript, Greenleaf and Law in the Federal
City, p. 255. As will be noted later on in the narrative, a detachment
of marines was temporarily quartered in Georgetown and also on Camp
Hill, or Peter Hill, both early names of the University Square.
3““'The space heretofore proposed to be appropriated for a fort and
barracks on Peter’s Hill is the most proper site’’ [for the nationai
university]. Commissioners to Washington, Oct. 1, 1796. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book.
254 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Madison, and came up for discussion, but no final action was
reached.!
The extent to which the designation of the uses of reserva-
tions was carried finds an illustration in a statement made to the
commissioners Oct. 15, 1794, by Thomas Freeman, employed in
the survey of the city. He had been asked to give the list of
appropriations that fell within the land of Mr. Burnes, and he
enumerates them as follows: ‘‘ part of the President’s Square,
the Judiciary, National Church, Bank, Exchange, and Market
Squares.” According to a letter written to the commissioners
Aug. 27, 1799, by Daniel Carroll of Duddington, a reservation
to be used as an exchange was also contemplated near the
Eastern Branch. The exact location as pointed out by Mr.
Carroll was the squares between 5th and 7th streets, and south
of M Street, S. E. Such a provision was not made, and in
the division with the landowners, the squares passed into
private hands. Subsequently they were acquired by the United
States and added to the navy yard.
A specific appropriation was made by the commissioners of
another public reservation in selecting the square on the
north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 3d and 43th
streets, as the site of the mint. This square, as well as the
two to the east and bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 2d,
3d, and C streets, N. W., were spoken of by the commissioners
as “the Bank and Exchange Squares.”? But six years later
1 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 153. Memorial
of the Commissioners.
2 Commissioners to Edmund Randolph, secretary of state. Com-
missioners’ Letter Book, May 26, 1795. As the area of the proposed
mint site is given as six acres, that clearly identifies the western square
of the three as the one selected. The abundant water supply, referring
to the near-by Tiber, was mentioned as one of the advantages. On
June 13, 1795, Dermott was directed to prepare a plat of the city with
every public appropriation plainly delineated, ‘‘together with the
appropriation now made by the board for the national university and
mint.’’ Proceedings of Commissioners. As indicating probably the
origin of the public appropriations, there is an entry June 19, 1795, in
the proceedings of a letter written to the secretary of state enclosing
“‘a plat and Major L’Enfant’s publication respecting the public appro-
priations in the city.”
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 255
Congress decided to continue the mint temporarily at Phila-
delphia, and as it has proved, the location became permanent.
The survey of the city was completed June 25, 1795, and
a street 80 feet wide was laid out bounding the city from
Rock Creek east to the Eastern Branch and known for
many years as Boundary Street and now named Florida
Avenue. All the squares had boundary stones, and the sur-
veyor called the attention of the commissioners to the im-
portance of securing their preservation.
The third change in the board of commissioners was made
necessary by the resignation of Daniel Carroll in May, 1795.
He had served for a little over four years, and was the last of
the members of the first board to leave the service. He was
sixty-five years of age, but evidently in feeble health. Mr.
Law speaks of him as “enfeebled with age,” though “the most
zealous and active of the three.” ?
The successor of Mr. Carroll was Alexander White, who was
born in Rappahannock County, Va., fifty-seven years before.
He died in Woodville, that county a short distance to the west
of Culpepper, where it is presumed he was living at the date of
the appointment. Mr. White served his state in the conti-
nental congress and was chosen a representative to the first
congress and was reélected. It was Mr. White whom Mr.
Jefferson described as voting for the funding bill “with a revul-
1Thomas Freeman to the Commissioners. Letter Book. Printed
in Potomac Flats Case, Vol. 4, p. 1599. Mr. Freeman states he fixed
at Rock Creek in the road leading from Georgetown to Bladensburg,
where a small temporary boundary stone stood, a large stone lettered
“First boundary of the city of Washington,”’ ‘‘and from thence ran a
street eighty feet wide, which bounds the city to the second boundary ;
the north side thereof runs in the centre of the road.’’ He produced
this street to the third boundary, where it falls into 15th Street E., and
‘with part of 15th and C Street N. completes a street which bounds
the city from Rock Creek to the Eastern Branch; the north side of
the bound stones stand in the north line of the street — so that these
stones stand in the city.”
2 Law to Greenleaf, July 4, 1795. Greenleaf and Law in the Fed-
eral City, p. 108. He died in May of the folluwing year, the death of
his mother at the age of ninety-three having preceded his by only a
few months.
256 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
sion of stomach,” and his was one of the two votes that carried
the measure and made possible the enactment of the residence
bill.
Prior to this change, however, the commissioners experienced
the sharpness of tongue and the acerbity of temper of their
late colleague, Thomas Johnson. For in pursuance of his de-
clared intention when he gave up his official connection with the
city, to devote his time to furthering his private interests, he
had purchased, from Greenleaf and Morris, Square west of
Square 4 on Rock Creek, just north of K Street. The commis-
sioners took the position that these were water lots, and there-
fore did not come within the selections to be made by Greenleaf
and his associates. Mr. Johnson, however, held that this re-
striction did not apply to the section on Rock Creek north of
K Street, but only to lots on the river.
The commissioners further maintained that a water street
was to be provided there. The controversy was referred to the
president, but before any response had come from that source,
it had gone to such extremes that the commissioners speak of
“the disgraceful epithets” which they attribute to “a derange-
ment of the mind”’ of their late associate. They refused all
further communications until “ a return of reason points out the
propriety of using at least the language of gentlemen.” By
June Mr. Johnson had brought a suit in chancery against the
commissioners, and the latter retained Luther Martin and
William Pinckney as their counsel.
But a more serious matter engaged the attention of the offi-
cial heads of the city. The second instalment, due in May,
1795, of the purchase money from Greenleaf and Morris had
not been paid. It is evident the joint note of the syndicate
given to the commissioners the previous fall, in anticipated
payment of the instalment of the purchase money due the
following spring, had not been paid. Then it appears Green-
leaf gave his notes for about one-third of the amount due, but
these were also found, as the commissioners state, “not pro-
ductive.”
On the 15th of May, 1795, Greenleaf was notified by the com-
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 251.
missioners that unless the payment was made, they would take
legal steps. From this date the harmony and the confidence
that had marked the relations between the city authorities and
Greenleaf, who thus far had been the only member of the
syndicate personally known in the Washington city enterprise,
was changed to suspicion and distrust. In the short period of
eighteen months the bubble burst, and the great expectations
formed had been found to be without a sure basis. Then came
another turn in the wheel with the announcement of the pur-
chase, as it was termed, by Morris and Nicholson of the interest
of Greenleaf. But as the sequel showed, this was merely the
adding of another story to the financial fabric of paper. The
character of this transaction is graphically depicted by Robert
Morris, who wrote July 27, 1795, to William Constable : —
“Mr. Greenleaf offered to buy or sell the Washington lots
at a price and on terms which he named. This was manly, and
I first concluded to sell, but on further consideration Mr. N.
and myself concluded it was better to buy, because it was more
likely that the lots would command money to pay our debts
than Mr. G.’s paper.”
But Greenleaf did not raise the same objection to the paper of
Morris, for that was the only consideration in the transaction.!
The expectations of these operators of securing a loan in
Holland had been disappointed, for, as Morris explained to
Washington when the latter, in the fall of 1795, wrote to Morris
at the instance of the commissioners representing the pressing
need of the city enterprise for funds, and urging a compliance
with the terms of the agreement, “Our embarrassments have
arisen from another source; Mr. Greenleaf is under contract
with his hand and seal to provide us with money to carry through
the operations which, at his instance, we were tempted to under-
take, but the French invasion of Holland put it out of his power
to fulfil his engagement.” ”
1 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 113; also letter of Morris
to William Cranch, July 20, 1795, p. 112.
2 Morris to Washington, Sept. 21, 1795. Greenleaf and Law in the
Federal City, p. 114.
VoL. I—8
258 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Morris expresses the opinion that under the circumstances
the commissioners would not be justified in advertising the
property for sale, and he adds hopefully that “our exertions will
secure them the money much sooner than by such a course.”
The commissioners, acting on the advice of their counsel,
Luther Martin and William Pinckney, suspended all further
conveyances of lots to the syndicate, and decided to sell “as
many of the lots sold to Morris and Greenleaf as may be neces-
sary’? to make good the unpaid instalment of the purchase
money due in May, 1795, especially, they add, “when they re-
flect that 95,000 pounds have been raised and actually received
from sales of city lots by them, while they profess to be unable
to pay their annual instalment of only $68,500.” ?
The commissioners at once secured from Greenleaf a recon-
veyance of the 1000 lots belonging to the city which had been
deeded to him for the purpose of securing a loan in Holland,
which was to be in addition to the loan he designed to place
on the property of the syndicate.”
In the course of a few months the commissioners concluded
not to attempt to carry measures to the extreme of a sale for
fear of injury to the city. “For the past two months,” they
write rather dejectedly to Morris, “the operations of the city
have been carried on solely by a loan from the bank on our
private credit. The bank can give no further aid and will
certainly call for $20,000 already lent.”
In spite of their resolution to suspend further conveyances to
the syndicate, the commissioners granted the request of Green-
leaf to convey for Morris and Nicholson a lot on the south side
of E Street, between 6th and 7th streets, N. W., to the vestry
of Washington Parish, and an adjoining lot to the rector, Rev.
George Ralph. Dr. Thornton entered his protest, on the ground
that such an action was contrary to the previous decision of
the board. A few days later the commissioners called upon
1 Commissioners to Edmund Randolph, secretary of state. Com-
missioners’ Letter Book, June 10, 1795.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, June 5, 1795.
’ Commissioners’ Letter Book, Sept. 28, 1795.
. WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 259
Greenleaf to substantiate charges made by him to the secretary
of state “of direct fraud and partiality in the execution of our
trust.” They add they believe that his course is intended to be
only a cover for his inability to comply with his engagements.
The reply of Greenleaf has not been preserved, but from refer-
ences to the matter, it was evidently of an evasive character.
The finances of the city were in such a strait that early in the
year it had been decided by the city authorities to endeavor
through their own exertions to secure a loanon the city property,
and Dr. Thornton was sent to Philadelphia on that mission.
There was apparently small hope that money could be obtained
in this country, and so the effort at that time was to try what
could be accomplished in England. By the fall of 1795 it was
known that such an expectation was not to be relied upon, and
then Washington advised that an application be made to the
state of Maryland, where it was presumed that the interest
in the success of the new city would be a favorable factor, and
in addition that the state was in a good financial condition.”
The good judgment of the first president was manifest in his
counsel on this occasion, that in the event the proposed Maryland
loan could not be made, then it would be time enough to apply
to the general government. Before such an alternative was
resorted to, not only were efforts made in England and in Hol-
land, but in addition to the application to the state of Maryland
the aid of the bank of the United States was sought. It was
not until every other resource had failed that what was appar-
ently a dreaded ordeal was determined upon, and congress was
asked at the session early in 1796 for a loan.
Progress was being made in the erection of the capitol and
the president’s house. By the autumn of 1795 the first story
above ground of the north wing of the capitol was about com-
pleted. In October George Hadfield was placed in charge,
relieving Mr. Hoban of his duties as superintendent of that
1 Commissioners to Greenleaf, July 20, 1795. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
2 Washington to the Commissioners, Oct. 30 and Nov. 9, 1795.
Washington Letters, War Department.
260 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
building, but soon difficulties arose due to Mr. Hadfield’s deter-
mination to change the plans that had been adopted. He was
not allowed to have his way and resigned, but shortly concluded
to yield his views and was reinstated.!. The work on the presi-
dent’s house was so well advanced that by the first of Decem-
ber the walls were within a few feet of the eaves.”
It was during the summer of 1795 that the Great Hotel was
completed sufficiently to be covered in, under the direction of
James Hoban, acting by the orders of the commissioners, who
secured the funds from Blodgett. As these officials state, they
had obtained from Blodgett “$2000 in cash and $14,000 in
notes well endorsed.’”’ The proportion of cash to paper in this
instance was typical of many of the enterprises of the new city.
The hotel building stood in this unfinished state for many
years.
In the vicinity of the sites of both of the public buildings and
on the public lots in the adjoining squares were erected a num-
ber of structures, mostly of frame, for the use and accommoda-
tion of the workmen and also to shelter the material. Bells were
installed at both buildings to summon the workmen, and in
1795 began the use at the capitol, at least, of one of those tem-
porary structures for religious uses. As early as the middle of
June, 1795, public worship was regularly held at the capitol
every Sunday morning.* Rev. George Ralph, the rector of
Christ Episcopal Church, officiated on these occasions. Mr.
Ralph had purchased for $2400 from the commissioners a
house on the north side of East Capitol Street, just east of
1 Washington was consulted by the city officials about Mr. Hadfield’s
proposals, which he opposed, adding, ‘‘As the present plan is nobody’s
but a compound of everybody’s.” Nov. 7, 1795. War Department
Manuscripts.
2 Report of Committee to the House, March 11, 1796. Amer.
State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 142. Also contains an account
of the state of the capitol and general city expenditures.
3 Commissioners’ Letter Book, June 24, 1795. Commissioners to
George Budd. The latter, with Henry Pratt, bought the Blodgett
property for Bickley.
‘Impartial Observer and Washington Advertiser, June 17, 1795.
Copy in Harvard University Library.
-
WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 261
Ist Street (Lot 10, Square 728), which had been occupied by
Mr. Hallet, and here he opened a school both for day and
boarding pupils.! It was in the building at the capitol,
probably a carpenter shop, where church services were held
each sabbath that the Washington lodge of masons in the
summer of 1795 observed St. John’s Day by attending ser-
vice, when an address was delivered by Rev. Mr. Ralph, who
was the grand chaplain of masons of Maryland. “After public
worship,” the published announcement reads, “the brethren
will return in procession to the Little Hotel to refreshment.” 2
The Little Hotel was located on the north side of F Street,
seventy-five feet east of 15th, and was built by James Hoban.
As the above is the earliest reference made to the hotel, it may
be concluded that this pioneer tavern in that section of the
city was opened about June, 1795.
The earliest record of a hotel within the limits of the city
is that of John Travers on the Eastern Branch, that invited
public patronage as early as the summer of 1793. There was
also Mark Ward’s Tavern at Greenleaf’s Point, where passage
could be engaged on the packet plying between Georgetown,
Greenleaf’s Point and Alexandria.®
On the block to the east of the Little Hotel a post-office for
the city of Washington began business in July, 1795. The
location was the north side of F Street, between 13th and 14th
streets, and the first postmaster, Thomas Johnson, Jr., who was
also serving as secretary to the board of commissioners, an-
nounced that he had “opened the post-office at his house on
F Street, Square No. 253.” 4
His appointment was made in June 24, 1795, and in tendering
him the position the assistant postmaster-general, writing from
1Impartial Observer and Washington Advertiser, June 17, 1795.
Copy in Harvard University Library.
2 The same.
* Impartial Observer and Washington Advertiser, July 17, 1795.
The fare from Georgetown to the Point by the packet was seventeen
cents, and from there to Alexandria thirty-three cents. The landing
place at the Point was Morris and Nicholson’s wharf, foot of 6th
Street. 4The same.
262 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Philadelphia on that date, states that “the contractor who
carries the mail from Baltimore to Alexandria has represented
to me that the road which leads past your house is not so good as
the old road and also that it is considerably further.”’ He asks
for information on this point.!
This allusion to the post road constructed by the commis-
sioners through the city determines its course in that portion as
following from the capitol what was known as the F Street
ridge rather than Pennsylvania Avenue, which at that time
had not been opened and was still unredeemed from the
swampy condition which marked the line of that thorough-
fare from the capitol as far west perhaps as 13th Street.”
Mr. Johnson served as postmaster of the city only six months,
dying in December, 1795.*
His successor, Christopher Richmond, who entered upon his
duties the first of the following year, had just completed a service
of twelve months as bookkeeper and paymaster in the office
1 History of the City Post-Office. Madison Davis. Coll. Hist.
Soc., Vol. 6.
2 As late as 1812 a writer in the National Intelligencer stated that the
section south of Pennsylvania Avenue to the Tiber was aswamp. The
northern border of the Tiber as delineated on the King Plats had a
diagonal course from near its mouth, about at the foot of 17th Street to
the northeast, crossing C Street at about 13th Street, thence to Penn-
sylvania Avenue at 9th Street, thence south, crossing the centre market
square to B Street. The course of this waterway, much narrower in
its flow, was then along B Street, turning to the north between 6th and
7th streets, and again touching Pennsylvania Avenue, and thence along
that thoroughfare to 3d Street, where it bent to the north, crossing
Pennsylvania Avenue at 2d Street and thence in a northeasterly direc-
tion to the northern bounds of the city.
3 The office of secretary to the board of commissioners was abolished
after Mr. Johnson’s death, and the official notices formerly signed by
that official were subsequently issued over the name of Thomas Munroe,
clerk, the latter taking the place of John M. Gantt, who had resigned.
Mr. Gantt, thereafter, devoted his time to his duties as recorder of
deeds. Another office established in the early days of the existence
of the board, namely that of treasurer of the city, was abolished some
six months later. William Deakins, Jr., who had held the place from
the beginning, was notified that the office had been done away with
‘‘as unnecessary.’’ Proceedings of Commissioners, July 28, 1796.
His duties also devolved upon the clerk.
WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 263
of the commissioners, where of course he had been associated
with his predecessor, who was the secretary of the board. But
he too lived but a short time after taking the office, as in five
months he was dead. It is conjectured that he, like Mr. Johnson,
kept the post-office in his residence, the latter being located at
the southeast corner of 13th and F streets. It is quite evident
the business of the office was not very large, as both of the first
two incumbents were in addition able to perform the duties in
connection with the work in the office of the commissioners.
The vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Richmond was
filled by the appointment on May 26, 1796, of Lund Washington,
Jr., who was the son of Lund Washington, for a number of years
in the employ of General Washington as steward of the Mount
Vernon estate, during the latter’s absence in the period of the
war of the revolution. Mr. Washington probably also followed
the example of his predecessors and had the post-office in the
house where he lived. The location was on the north side of
East Capitol Street, a short distance east of lst Street. This
change in the location of such an important centre was no doubt
viewed by the partisans of the east and west sections of the
city with mixed feelings of joy and disappointment. But for
the next three years the people of the east end of the city en-
joyed the satisfaction as well as the convenience of having the
post-office in their midst.!
In the spring of 1795 T. Wilson brought from Norfolk, Va.,
type and a printing press, and began on the 22d of May the
publication of a weekly newspaper under the title of the Im-
partial Observer and Washington Advertiser. The office was
at 43 and P streets, S. W., and as the first newspaper printed
in the new city, it was no doubt regarded at the time as an omen
of its rising greatness. The printing office at Greenleaf’s Point,
as the editor designated the location, also offered to the public
“Carey’s war map, writing paper, writing ink, ink powder, etc.’’”
It may also be looked upon as significant of the current ex-
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., p. 148, Vol. 6.
2 Impartial Observer and Washington Advertiser, July 17, 1795.
Copy in Harvard University Library.
264 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
pectation of the day relative to the section of the city that was
thought to have the best prospects, that the publisher estab-
lished himself at Greenleaf’s Point, although it may be sur-
mised that the neighborhood of the most extensive of the build-
ing operations of the syndicate had something to do with his
choice. How long this pioneer newspaper continued is not
known, but it is supposed that it was about a year.!
At the time of beginning the publication, the Columbian
Chronicle of Georgetown, a semi-weekly, was then completing
a year and a half of its existence.
All other avenues of securing money for the city having been
closed, it became apparent during the last days of 1795 that an
appeal to congress would have to be made. As is clearly shown,
this course was not decided upon except as a last resort. For
five years the work of creating a federal seat had been prose-
cuted without help from the general government and without
recourse to congress. Not since the close of the bitter and
prolonged contest over the residence bill in the year 1790 had
the subject been brought before the national legislature in any
shape or form except the amendatory law extending the District
bounds. It was with evident reluctance that the chief spirit in
the new enterprise, the president of the United States, decided
upon a course that might subject the enterprise anew to the
perils of the antagonisms, the jealousies and the partisan feel-
ing that were quiescent but not obliterated.
The expression as well as the spirit of the president’s message
which accompanied the memorial to congress of the commis-
sloners was tactful and reassuring, and, moreover, no appro-
priation from the public treasury was sought, but only permis-
sion to use the city lots owned by the government as a basis
foraloan. But it was realized from the experience in practically
all the money markets of the world that such a security would
1The Harvard University Library has seven numbers, the State
Historical Society of Wisconsin three, and the Library of Congress
one. Another number was discovered in a house on the eastern
shore in the year 1904, but with these exceptions all record of this
newspaper has been lost. At first a weekly, a change was made to
semi-weekly at some date between July 27 and Oct. 17.
WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 265
not be sufficient, and so in the last sentence of the memorial
it was asked that “in case the property so pledged should prove
inadequate to the purpose of repayment, the United States
will make good the deficiency.” !
The president expressed the belief that “if the remaining
resources are properly cherished, so as to prevent the loss of
property by hasty and numerous sales’’ that all the buildings
required can be completed in season without the aid of congress.
The memorial emphasized the same point and called attention
to the probable depreciation of values, if so large a portion of
the city property was placed on the market as would be needed
to raise the required funds. On the other hand, it was urged
if this property could be held until the seat of government was
removed, the lots could be disposed of at prices far beyond their
present value. And then rising in their forecast of the city’s
future, the commissioners asserted that with such an asset
“not only ail sums now borrowed on that foundation may be
repaid but much property reserved for the disposal of the
United States.”
The president mentioned in the course of his message that one
of the city commissioners was in the city for the purpose of
giving further information, if desired. He referred to Alex-
ander White, whose experience as a member of the house in the
first two congresses pointed him out as the one who would be
most likely to be of service at such a critical time.
The memorial read in the house January 8 was referred to a
select committee, but in the meantime Mr. White, not waiting
to be called on for information, busied himself in visiting the
members, or, in more modern terms, lobbying. His experience
as given in a letter to his colleague indicates that species of
activity had its difficulties.”
“The gentlemen whose minds [ ought to penetrate,” he writes,
“and to impress with favorable sentiments, attend the House
1 Message of the president and memorial of the commissioners,
Jan. 8, 1796. American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 133.
2 White to Thornton, Philadelphia, Jan. 20, 1796. J. Henley
Smith collection.
266 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
from ten to three, dine from three to five, visit mornings and
evenings, the same hours I must visit them. Often I miss
them at their lodgings or find them in mixed companies, so that
although I have scarcely allowed myself to eat or sleep I have
not been able to converse with more than thirty men, including
the known friends of the measure.”
He adds that he favored bringing the matter forward at once,
but Mr. Madison counselled delay, “and the president is de-
sirous that it should be delayed ’till the opinions of the mem-
bers can be fully collected and wishes me to remain ’till this can
be done.”
Five days later the committee submitted a report to the house,
which gave an account of the progress made in preparing the
new city for its intended uses, and stated as the opinion of the
committee that the funds derivable from the city property “are
fully adequate . . . without any aid from the treasury of the
United States.” !
According to the report the expenditures amounted to
$374,250, which included $192,000 from the states of Virginia
and Maryland, $96,652 for 200 lots sold to individuals and
$106,578 from Greenleaf, Morris and Nicholson. The estimate
of the commissioners as to the value of the lots still owned by
the public is given as $1,393,790, based upon the average price
of the lots sold. The transaction with Greenleaf, Morris
and Nicholson was mentioned, but nothing was said of their
failure to pay the whole of the second instalment of the pur-
chase money, although the commissioners are reported by the
committee as being of the opinion that it would be unsafe “to
calculate on strict punctuality in the payment of the instal-
ments as they become due from their debtors, though they
assure the committee that there will eventually be no loss.”
What was to be done to have the place ready for the use of the
government was stated by the committee to be the completion
of the two buildings then under way, the erection of a building
for the judiciary, and another for the four executive depart-
‘Report of committee, Jan. 25, 1796. American State Papers,
Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 136.
WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 267
ments, “and such improvements in the streets as may be essen-
tially requisite for the public convenience.’ The estimate for
completing the whole was $700,000, but it was believed that it
would be necessary to expend, till the year 1800, the sum of
$140,000 annually. Allowing $40,000 annually on account of
payments by the city debtors, there would therefore be a de-
ficiency in the funds of $100,000. While the committee gave
as the opinion of the commissioners that the sale of the public
property, even under the most unfavorable circumstances, would
be adequate to the purpose, yet the committee believed such a
policy “would be a wanton sacrifice of the public interest and
justified only by the most urgent necessity, which the committee
conceives does not exist.”
The committee concluded that if the state of the public
finances would admit of it, that annual advances from the public
treasury would be the most economical and certain, so the con-
clusion was reached that the only mode that could with pro-
priety be adopted would be that of a loan secured on the
property.
The committee then recommended two resolutions. The
first to authorize the president to borrow a sum not exceeding
$500,000, nor more than $200,000 in one year to be secured on
the public property in the city, the United States to guarantee
the deficiency should the sale of the lots so pledged as security
for the loan not produce a sufficient sum. The loan was to be
repaid at any time after the year 1803 by instalments not ex-
ceeding in any one year one-fifth of the whole sum borrowed.
The second resolution required the commissioners to make
reports every six months to the secretary of the treasury, to
be laid before congress.
The course of the discussion for the first two days the subject
was before the house centred on the amount of the loan and
the rate of interest, the latter being left by the committee to
the discretion of the president. They were, however, not lack-
ing suggestions that after all the loan was only an indirect
appropriation. But it was maintained by the friends of the
measure that when the government removed to the new city
268 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
that property values would be so enhanced that the public
lots would be ample to pay back the proposed loan. The
members were reminded that up to that day not one shilling of
public money had been spent on the permanent seat. Prudence
and economy, it was said, forbade the sale at this time of the
public property there. It was further urged if this application
of the commissioners was granted, public confidence would be
fully established in the certainty of the government going
there, while a contrary course would convey the idea that the
government was not serious. One of the speakers intimated
there had been waste and extravagance in the expenditures.
When a vote was reached the resolutions were adopted, leaving,
however, the amount of the loan a blank, and then the report
was referred again to the committee with instructions to bring
in a bill.
Nearly three weeks elapsed before a bill was reported, and
then the debate stretched over portions of four days. Objec-
tion was made to tying up the public property by this loan as
likely to interfere with the sale of lots, and an amendment was
proposed to substitute as the basis of the loan the credit of the
United States. Again the criticism was heard that the com-
missioners had not been economical, and that the public build-
ings, especially the president’s house, were too magnificent.
As one of the speakers insisted, it must be expected that every-
thing else will be in proportion, and that even “the officers
who go into these palaces must have their salaries proportioned
to the grandeur of their habitations.”
The bill was sent back to the committee and four were added
to its membership. The committee was instructed to make an
inquiry as to whether any alterations ought to be made in the
plans of the public buildings, and it was suggested that if the
president’s house was thought to be too large for its intended
purpose that it could be fitted up for the use of congress.
Some two weeks elapsed before the committee was prepared
to make a report, and then on the 11th of March the house was
informed that in the opinion of the committee “no alterations
can with propriety now be made in the plans of the public
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 269
buildings.” As to the expenditures, past and future, the house
is referred to the first report and the committee submitted a
statement from Commissioner White, giving more in detail
the various items of revenue and expenditures and estimates
as to the sums required.!
It was not until the last day of March, three months after the
subject had first been brought to its attention, that the house
turned again to this report and the bill which embodied the
recommendation of the committee. This time only one day
was given to its consideration, and then the objection was raised
for the first time which has so often been heard in discussions on
District affairs during the century that has elapsed. One of the
speakers said that he did not consider the United States under
any obligations to provide accommodations for the government
in the federal city, while another speaker exclaimed that on
precisely the same principle that congress guaranteed a loan
for the city of Washington, it might guarantee loans for all the
cities in the Union. “Why a loan for the city of Washington in
particular,” he asked ; “was there any reason why the different
cities in the Union shall be taxed for that city ! ”
This view was held by the member from Philadelphia, and his
opposition to the measure, as well as that of other members
from the state of Pennsylvania, was attributed in the course of
the debate to their desire to retain the seat of government in
Philadelphia. The letters of Mr. White to his associates on the
board betray the strain of these anxious days, and while the vote
in the house gave a majority of over two-thirds for the bill, yet
the minority evidently made up in zeal and activity for what
it lacked in numbers.
The bill was received in the senate April 1 and referred to
a committee. The latter part of the month it was reported
back and debated for a couple of days. Then its consideration
was postponed for a week, and when taken up again May 3d
various amendments were proposed and rejected, and the follow-
ing day the bill was passed by a little more than a majority vote.
1 Report of committee, March 11, 1796. American State Papers,
Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 142.
270 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The signature of the president was attached to the bill May
8, 1796.
A glimpse of the current thought of the day is to be found in
the comments of Thomas Twining, an Englishman and an
official in the Indian service, who was in Philadelphia while
this bill was before congress. Mr. Twining was travelling for
pleasure and observation, and decided to go as far south as
Baltimore and Washington. At the latter place he expected
to see Thomas Law, whom he had heard of in India... In speak-
ing of Mr. Law’s large land purchases in the new city he ob-
serves, “It was, however, considered an adventure of much risk,
for doubt was entertained not only whether in case of General
Washington’s death the proposed change would take place,
but whether the removal of the seat of government would carry
with it the augmentation of commerce and population which
Mr. Law anticipated and which was essential to the success of
his speculation.” + Another foreigner who was a visitor to
Washington in the fall of 1795 and the following spring,
states that so strong was the opposition in congress to granting
the aid asked for on behalf of the city “that the petition was
suffered to lie on the table unattended to for many weeks:
nor was the prayer of it complied with until a number of
gentlemen that were very deeply interested in the improve-
ment of the city went round to the different members and
made interest with them in person to give their assent to the
measure.”? Mr. Weld found that there were many, par-
ticularly in Philadelphia, “who are still very adverse to the
removal of the seat of government thither and are doing all in
their power to check the progress of the buildings in the city
and to prevent the Congress from meeting there at the ap-
pointed time.” The Duke de la Liancourt found traces of
the same feeling of hostility to the new centre.
Seven months passed before the commissioners were able to
1 Travels in America One Hundred Years Ago. Thomas Twining,
New York, 1893, p. 58.
* Travels through the States of North America. Isaac Weld, Jr.,
London, Vol. 1, pp. 64-89.
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 271
place the loan they had been authorized to make. In the mean-
time in order that the building operations of the year might be
started, money was borrowed from the Bank of Columbia on
the personal note of the commissioners, further secured by “two
unquestioned sureties,” and an attempt was made to negotiate
a loan at the Bank of the United States, which was not success-
ful. What was called an “accommodation loan” was obtained
from “some of the proprietors of the city,” which the latter
secured from the Bank of Columbia on their notes.
Another effort to secure a loan was described in the first re-
port to congress made by the city authorities in accordance
with the law authorizing the loan.? They state that they had
sent instructions to a banking firm in Amsterdam, Holland,
to negotiate a loan of $200,000. To their letter of May 16,
1796, they had received a reply dated September 6, in
which they were informed “that the unfavorable circumstances
of the times, the penury which then existed, made it impossible
to succeed at that moment.” The bankers held out hopes,
which were not realized, of a possibility of accomplishing
something later on.
The commissioners add that “the amelioration of our finances
during the present season,” referring undoubtedly to the pay-
ment of the large proportion of the Morris and Greenleaf
instalment due for that year, was “accomplished by the original
funds of the city — a circumstance which authorizes the pleasing
hope that if we should not obtain all the advantages intended
by the guarantee, our own resources will enable us to prepare
the necessary buildings in time for the reception of Congress.”
With these brave words of assurance the report closes.
It was not until the 14th of December that one of the various
attempts to fill the loan met with success. On that date
the legislature of Maryland adopted a resolution to loan the
city $100,000 in United States six per cent stock at par bearing
1 Commissioners to the President, May 31, 1796. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
2 Letter from the secretary of the treasury, transmitting the copy
of a letter from the commissioners, etc. Presented in the house
Dee. 29, 1796.
272 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
an immediate interest of six per cent. As security the com-
missioners were required to give a bond to the state for the
amount of the loan, and in their individual capacities a further
bond of $200,000.!. But it was found that the market price
for the stock was 803, so that out of the sale of the first lot
placed on the market, which was $20,000, the city funds realized
but $16,503.?
Pen pictures of the city as it appeared in this period are to
be found in the volumes descriptive of their American travels
by Thomas Twining, Isaac Weld, Jr.,a young Irishman of educa-
tion, Francis Baily, then in his early manhood but later on dis-
tinguished for his scientific studies, and the Duke de la Roche-
foucault Liancourt, an accomplished member of the French
assembly who had been obliged to leave his country on account
of political persecution. Twining was in Washington in the
spring of 1796, Weld and Baily in the fall of the same year and
the Duke de la Rochefoucault Liancourt in the spring of the fol-
lowing year.
Twining was eleven hours in the stage coach travelling from
Baltimore to Georgetown, the road for the most part passing
through thick woods. He started from Georgetown on horse-
back to visit Mr. Law, who had just come to live in Washington,
and with his bride, Elizabeth Custis, the granddaughter of Mrs.
Washington, was occupying the house just completed at the
southeast corner of 6th and N streets, S. W. Mr. Twining
states that “having crossed an extensive tract of level country
somewhat resembling an English heath, I entered a large wood
through which a very imperfect road had been made, principally
by removing the trees or rather the upper parts of them, in the
usual manner. After some time, this indistinct way assumed
more the appearance of a regular avenue, the trees having been
cut down in a straight line.”* If this was the new post road
through the city, its condition shows the primitive state of
the public work as then carried out. After travelling along this
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Dec. 23, 1796.
2'The same, Jan. 24, 1797.
3 Travels in America. Twining, p. 100.
- WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 273
road for about half a mile, Twining records that he “came
out upon a large spot, cleared of wood, in the centre of which I
saw two buildings on an extensive scale and some men at work
on one of them.”’ On inquiring, he found one of the buildings
was the capitol and the other was intended for a tavern.
On every side he saw “a thick wood pierced with avenues.”
“Excepting the streets and avenues,” observes Weld, “and a
small part of the ground adjoining the public buildings, the
whole place is covered with trees.”
Mr. Baily found Georgetown to be a handsome town, and he
indulged in a prediction, which after an interval of a century
came true, “that it will in the course of time lose its name of
Georgetown and adopt the general one of Washington.”’
“Not much more than one half the city is cleared,” he ob-
served. “The rest is in woods and most of the streets which
are laid out are cut through these woods . . . and appear like
broad avenues in a park bounded on each side by thick woods.”
He records as something he considered will be regarded as
remarkable in the years when the city has grown great and
prosperous that he saw some boys out hunting “actually kill a
brace of partridges in what will be one of the most public streets
of the city.”
The French statesman was more interested in the prices of
city lots and the speculative ventures of Law and Morris and
others. He declares that even at the time of his visit in the
spring of 1797 those concerned in the new city from a real
estate point of view had come to the conclusion that “the
immense extent of ground marked out for the city would not
be so speedily covered with houses as was expected. From that
instant the common interest ceased and the proprietors became
rivals.” Then, he asserts, the efforts were to advance one or
the other quarter of the city at the expense of the others or
without regard to any other interest.
As has been already pointed out sectional rivalry was born
at a much earlier period in the career of the city than that of
the visit of the French traveller.
It is also interesting to note that of this group of intelligent
voL.I—T
274 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
observers, two of them, Mr. Weld and the Duke de la Rochefou-
cault Liancourt, were impressed with the prospects for the future
of the city as a commercial centre. As General Washington
had concluded at least two decades before, that the Potomac
was destined to become the great highway of trade between
the eastern sea-coast and the western country, so these men in
the year 1796 saw the trend of the material development of the
country in the same direction. At that time the trade of
Georgetown had declined, the French traveller recorded, owing
principally to the falling off in the cultivation of tobacco.
The European vessels that came to its port for the produce of
the country were obliged first to go to Baltimore with their
cargoes of goods in order to find a market. For at that time
Baltimore and Philadelphia were the principal trading centres
for the western country. ‘To these places the large covered
wagons drawn by four horses came bringing the flour and other
produce from the country about Pittsburg and also from Ken-
tucky and Tennessee through the Shenandoah Valley. On
the return the supplies of goods, mostly of foreign manufacture,
filled the wagons. As these travellers pointed out, when the
Potomac River was made navigable, then naturally for the ex-
pensive land carriage would be substituted water transportation.
The Potomac Company was then pushing forward its work
in overcoming the obstacles to the navigation of the Potomac,
and it was thought that in the near future a similar improvement
would be attempted in the Shenandoah River. The Duke
de la Rochefoucault Liancourt inspected the work that was
going on along the Potomac River, as far as the Great Falls.
He found the canal around the Little Falls on the Maryland
side entirely finished. He states it was a mile and a half in
length (but actually a little over two miles), with four locks.!
At the Great Falls the canal which was on the Virginia side
was finished, he states, but the locks were yet to be constructed.
1 A few miles above is a tributary of the Potomac that is now known
as Cabin John Run, and is spanned by an arch of masonry to carry the
pipes of the Washington Aqueduct. An early name of this stream,
of which the modern name is evidently a corruption, was Captain
John Branch. See advertisement in Centinel of Liberty, March 28,
WASHINGTON PLANS A UNIVERSITY 275
In the meanwhile vessels loaded with flour and tobacco, the
principal articles brought down the river, came to the head of
the canal at the Great Falls, where the hogsheads and barrels
were taken out and rolled down an inclined plane of wood tem-
porarily placed in the unfinished locks. They were again
loaded on vessels that passed down the river, freed by the
efforts of the company from the obstructions to navigation, and
thence through the locks at the Little Falls to the river, where
the passage to Georgetown was quickly made.!
The volume of business handled by the Potomac Company
even in the unfinished state of the river improvement increased
to such an extent that three years later a dividend was declared
which, however, also proved to be the only one paid.
While it is recorded by the travellers that the commerce of
Alexandria had not fallen off to the same degree as that of
Georgetown, owing to the greater extent of country of which
it was the only port, still it was in much the same situation, as
the goods supplied te the traders in exchange for the products
brought to its port were obtained from Baltimore. Both
towns were apparently growing, for in the years 1795 and 1796
the Maryland Legislature passed four separate acts authorizing
the extension of streets in Georgetown, and one for an addition
to the area of the town, while in the case of Alexandria, the
Virginia legislature in the year 1796 authorized an addition to
its area.”
1800, offering the plantation of Isaiah Boone for sale, “‘lying in the
fork of Captain John Branch one mile from the main road leading from
Georgetown to Frederick and three miles from Montgomery Court
House.”
1 See also Centinel of Liberty, April 4, 1797, for an account of the state
of the work. In the Gallatin report on roads and canals, American
State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1, p. 809, the length of the canal at the
Great Falls, including a basin and five locks, is stated to be 1200 yards,
while the canal at the Little Falls, including three locks, has a length of
3814 yards.
2 The mayors of Georgetown were elected annually, Robert Peter
was made mayor by the act of incorporaticn of Dec. 25, 1789; in
1790 he was succeeded by Thomas Beall, followed by Uriah Forrest,
1792; John Threlkeld, 1793; Peter Casanove, 1794; William Turner,
1795; Daniel Reintzell, 1796; and Lloyd Beall, 1797. Coll. Hist.
Soc., Vol. II, p. 201.
CHAPTER XI
USE OF THE RESERVATIONS
Ir was not alone to congress that the commissioners expressed
at this period confidence in the future of the city and especially
in the value of the public property. For it was in the spring
of 1796, when the building operations were being carried on by
borrowed money and congress was hesitating about affording
the financial aid that had been asked, that the commissioners
declined an offer to purchase one hundred lots at $350 per lot
on the ground that the price named was $150 less than what
had been paid in the previous year. It was at this time they
reached the conclusion to begin the opening of Pennsylvania
Avenue from the president’s house to the capitol. While re-
peatedly urged to do this before, as they state in a letter to
Mr. Burnes, yet they have refused “while your crops were
on the ground. Now the ground is unoccupied.”! With
their intimation early in the year to Mr. Burnes not to sow
seed on the line of Pennsylvania Avenue, the commissioners
felt that they could not be held responsible for any damage to
crops in the near future when that thoroughfare should be
opened, as was apparently contemplated. They discussed in a
long letter to the president the disposition of the public grounds
in the city, and having already recommended sites for the Na-
tional university and mint, they add that the establishment of
a botanical garden has been lately suggested, and if the site
proposed, which is not named, does not meet with the presi-
dent’s approval that a portion of the national university site
can be devoted to that purpose.”
1 Commissioners to David Burnes, Feb. 19, 1796. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
2 Commissioners to the President, Oct. 1, 1796. Commissioners’
Letter Book.
276
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 277
It is further suggested that “the Mall might be offered as
sites for foreign ministers without diverting the grounds lying
between the president’s house and the capitol from the pur-
pose of being public pleasure grounds. Indeed, we are informed
that such were Major L’Enfant’s ideas in laying off the city.”
In fact, they had already written to M. Frigo, the minister from
Spain, that asitefor a residence for his use would be appropriated,
and suggesting that he come to the city and indicate his pref-
erence as to the location.
The opinion is also expressed in the letter to the president
that the site proposed for a Marine Hospital on the Eastern
Branch between D, G and 19th streets, S. E., where in later
years the almshouse and city jail were built, might better be
divided into lots and sold, as there would be no such use of it
as proposed for years to come. In addition the benefit to the
funds of the city was pointed out as the ground cost only $5333
at $68 per acre, while at the current prices for lots, including
the water lots, it would yield $48,000.
The adjoining property holders were willing, it was stated,
to have the land there disposed of. No decision was made at
that time, but as will be seen later on the question of the right
of the commissioners to divert from public use any of the land
received for such uses became the subject of a long and ani-
mated controversy. The commissioners again renewed their
recommendation that the public spaces be designated, and
Washington, early in the following year, approved a list of
seventeen reservations. But as the plan of the city on which
they were delineated was not attached to the president’s official
proclamation, his successor, John Adams, in the following year,
corrected that oversight, and then on July 23, 1798, the public
spaces were determined as they exist to-day.
1 Almost a quarter of a century before the city poorhouse was built
on this reservation, making use of the ground for the first time, the
east half of the square on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue be-
tween 9th and 10thstreets, S. E., was purchased by the United States and
a building for a naval hospital was erected which is still in use. W. B.
3, p. 26, Trustees of Lewis Deblois to the United States, June 4, 1821.
The balance of the square was not acquired by the government until 1865.
278 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The building regulations, which in their first form demanded
a higher grade of structures than was usual at that period, had
been increased in their requirements by the regulation of
July 30, 1795. By this measure it was directed that in houses
of three stories the walls of the cellars were to be two feet thick,
those of the first story eighteen inches thick, the second story
fourteen inches and the third story nine inches, while the walls
of the cellars of two-story houses were to be eighteen inches, the
first story fourteen inches and the second story nine inches.
Party walls were subjected to the same regulations. But by
the summer of 1796 it was found that the requirements that
only brick or stone be used in the outer and party walls of
houses, and that no house shall be higher than forty feet to
the roof in any part of the city or lower than thirty-five on any
of the avenues, to use the words of the president in his order
impeded “the settlement in the city of mechanics and others
whose circumstances do not admit of erecting houses of the de-
cription authorized by the regulation.” The enforcement was
suspended until the first Monday in December, 1800.1
For five years the prohibition against wooden construction
had been maintained, and the change at this time showed the
desire on the part of the city authorities to encourage building
in the city. The great area of the city, as is evident from the
accounts of travellers already referred to, contained but few
buildings, and these were more numerous in the vicinity of
Greenleaf’s Point than in any other section. There Thomas
Law had taken up his residence, renting a house built by the
syndicate. In the same general section Morris and Nicholson
started in June, 1796, the largest single building operation up
to that time attempted in the new city. From plans prepared
by William Lovering, who combined as was quite common then
1This suspension was renewed and continued by the president of
the United States from time to time from the first Monday of Decem-
ber, 1800, to the first day of January, 1818. By the charter of 1820
the right to make building regulations was conferred on the city author-
ities. All the various building regulation orders, four in number,
issued from 1791 to 1796, are found in a digest of the laws of the cor-
poration of Washington. Samuel Burch. Washington, 1823, p. 326.
P USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 279
and for many years later the business of builder with the pro-
fession of architect, they began the erection of twenty two-
story houses covering the entire west frontage of the Square
on South Capitol Street between M and N streets, and
also a portion of the N Street front.!. John Nicholson
had come to the city to look after the interests of the
syndicate, although William Cranch, who had been serving
as their Washington representative while Mr. Greenleaf was
a member had been continued in the same relation. But it
was felt, no doubt, that so much depended upon the Washing-
ton property that the personal attention of the principals was
necessary. Robert Morris followed shortly and made his
first visit to the new city. The presence of the two principals
served to give new life and activity to their affairs. They were
in arrears in the payments of the instalments of the purchase
money of the public lots and the commissioners had just en-
gaged the legal services of Edward Tilghman of Philadelphia
to bring suit against Mr. Morris in that city.”
But this last resort was averted for the time by a liberal
cash payment.*? As an evidence of a willingness on the part
of the city authorities to facilitate the efforts of private
enterprise by making such public improvements as lay
within their limited means to accomplish may be cited their
advertisement for levelling New Jersey Avenue south of the
capitol, thus furnishing a thoroughfare to the scene. of build-
ing activity in that section of the city. When Nicholson
arrived in the city about the first of September, and with
the view of notifying all who had business with him
or Mr. Morris, of his presence, a notice was inserted in the
Washington Gazette, stating that he would be at Scott’s Tav-
1 William Lovering, who was an Englishman, established his home in
Alexandria (The Times and Alexandria Advertiser, Nov. 11, 1797),
but continued business in the new city.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Sept. 12, 1796.
3 Commissioners to Washington. Commissioners’ Letter Book,
Oct. 31, 1796. ‘‘Morris and Nicholson have relieved us of $50,000 of
our bank debt and they have reason to expect $20,000.”
4 Washington Gazette, June 29, 1796.
280 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ern during the day and at the Union Tavern in George-
town in the evening! The first named hostelry was also
known as the Little Hotel, while the Georgetown tavern
was a new structure just erected by subscription of a
number of citizens of Georgetown “as a useful improve-
ment to the town.” The building was located at the
northeast corner of 30th and M streets, and a portion of it
is still standing. It cost $16,000 in the year 1796 and under
the terms of the subscription it was to be offered at public
auction on the first Monday in May, 1800. The building was
of brick, three stories in height, sixty feet front, with a depth of
sixty-three feet. On the second floor was “an elegant assembly
room 60 X 30 feet.’’ There were thirteen lodging rooms on
the second and third floors and ten in the garret.? It
was decided to give some formal recognition of the big build-
ing undertaking near New Jersey Avenue, and so in the latter
part of September, when the houses begun in the previous
June had been roofed in, Messrs. Morris and Nicholson pro-
vided a barbecue which was attended by workmen and specta-
tors to the number of 200. “We do not recollect,” observes the
Washington Gazette of September 28, “ever to have seen a greater
appearance of social glee on a similar occasion. The buildings
are the greatest effort of private enterprise of any in the city
and for the time in which they were building the greatest in
the United States... . We must note that this is the first
and only entire front built on any square in the city.”” These
buildings were never finished, and stood in that condition for
many years and gradually went to ruin, so that no trace of
them remained in modern days. They were seized by Daniel
Carroll of Duddington for debt, and while nominally in his
possession the question of ownership was not settled until some
seven years later, when the suit was concluded. Their erection
was to satisfy the terms of purchase of land from Mr. Carroll,
who insisted upon a compliance. An effort was made to com-
promise by the payment of money, but the owner of the land
1 Washington Gazette, Aug. 31, 1796.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Feb. 18, 1800.
USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 281
declined.1. It must have been a difficult thing for Morris and
Greenleaf to provide the money for this undertaking, for already
then the shadows of a debtor’s prison was upon them, and their
career of financing with paper was to end in scarcely six months.
But of this there was no indication in the buoyant and hopeful
temperament of Mr. Morris, then past his sixtieth year. He
acknowledged that he felt doubtful about the value of his
Washington property when he left Philadelphia, hut when he
came in the atmosphere of the new city and found purchasers
there for his lots at treble and quadruple the prices he had
thought of selling them, then the prospect changed.
He recognized that this change in the situation was due in
part to the improvements the syndicate had started, and ex-
pressed. the conviction that if he and Mr. Nicholson could
remain that the outlook would become still brighter. “I am
delighted with the place,” he adds in the course of a letter to
his son-in-law, dated Nov. 1,1796. “Nature has done for it all
that could be desired, and I see that man will soon do the rest.”’ ?
Carroll had his way, and in addition te the erection, by the
syndicate, of the buildings which were supposed to enhance
the value of the lots in the vicinity which he owned, he also
furnished the bricks for the houses, as he was one of the large
brick makers of the day. It is a question whether or not his
course at that time was not the foundation for the tradition
that it was due to Mr. Carroll’s policy in regard to his large
holdings about the capitol, in demanding high figures, that
influenced the growth of the city away from the broad elevated
plateau east of that structure. There is, however, no question
that Mr. Carroll spent freely of his private means in building
in that section of the city, and as the advertisements in the
newspapers through the years offering his property for sale
show, he offered it on easy terms.2 The record of the fes-
1 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 125.
2 The same, p. 180.
3 “He made every exertion for the accommodation of the first Con-
gress in Washington by the erection of numerous buildings. He was
an indulgent landlord, and always generously favored the widow and
other needy tenants, yielding thousands of dollars rather than distress
282 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tivities that marked “the covering in” of the Twenty Build-
ings, as they came to be called, was made in the columns
of the Washington Gazette, which began its career June 15,
1796. It is presumed the editor of the Impartial Ob-
server had not been able to make both ends meet, and so
what was apparently a need at this time in the life of the city,
a local newspaper, was supplied through the enterprise of
Benjamin More. Who Mr. More was there is nothing avail-
able upon which to base an answer, save an advertisement in
the columns of the paper of his predecessor which detailed
sundry articles in the line of a general retail store that one
Benjamin More offered for sale at his place at Greenleaf’s
Point. Of course it cannot be positively stated that
the two men are identical and that he merely added to
the sale of tea and coats, the issue twice a week of a
newspaper. At any rate, whatever the facts may be, it is
certain that he did not continue at Greenleaf’s Point, for
he announced in the first issue that the paper is pub-
lished “at the house next west of the Hotel.’ From this
rather vague address it may be inferred that the printing
office was on E Street, N. W., and probably at the north-
east corner of that street and 9th. It would also be mis-
leading to infer a tendency in the direction of the growth of
the city towards the general locality chosen as the office of the
paper, for then and for some years later, it was a mere guess
even with those most familiar with the city which of the several
sections would draw the largest share of population and im-
provements. ‘There were to be found advocates of the river
frontage west of Greenleaf’s Point where later on the main
river trade of the city was centred. The Eastern Branch
region east of Greenleaf’s Point had its advocates, especially
from the class who expected to see the commercial resources
them for his rents. He was a friend to the poor and dispensed much
private charity from his own abundant stores; but alas, the mutability
of fortune deprived him of late years of the means of giving to the
poor.” Sketch of Daniel Carroll of Duddington on the occasion of
his death. Daily National Intelligencer, May 15, 1849.
1 Washington Gazette, June 15, 1796.
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 283
of the city expand, while there were not wanting those who
looked upon the vicinity of the capitol and of the president’s
house and of Georgetown as likely to become the important cen-
tres. A more obvious explanation of the location of the printing
office is that Mr. More, in all probability, bought out the busi-
ness of John Crocker, who had on the 9th of the previous March
begun the publication of the second newspaper that had ap-
peared in the new city. This was the Washington Advertiser,
a paper that is even less known than the Impartial Observer.
While eleven copies have been preserved, they are all in the
library of Harvard University.! It is a three-column quarto
of eight pages about the same size as the Impartial Observer,
which it succeeded, probably after some interval. As stated
in the colophon it was “printed (every Wednesday and Satur-
day) by John Crocker near the hotel.” ?
Mr. More conducted his paper with much spirit, which is in-
dicated in part by the announcement in the first issue that his
object in publishing the paper was “in the first place to obtain
a living, and in the second to amuse and inform his fellow
mortals.’’ There is no means of knowing whether he accom-
plished the second purpose, except that he failed to attain his
first object, for in a little less than a year his paper ceased
to appear.’ The publication, however, was resumed Sept. 16,
1797, as a weekly instead of a semi-weekly, but early in the
following spring it was abandoned.*
The Federal Lottery No. 2, as it was termed, the second of
Blodgett’s schemes for the improvement of the city, had at that
time reached such a stage that announcement was made that a
drawing would be begun at Georgetown and that there would
1The numbers are from March 12, 1796, Vol. 1, No. 2 to May 11,
1796, Vol. 1, No. 19.
2It may be presumed the editor was Dr. John Crocker, and that he
gave up journalism to pursue his profession as a physician. As Dr.
Crocker owned a house at the northeast corner of 9th and E streets,
it is possible the printing office of both papers was there.
3 The Gazette, July 26, 1797.
4A practically complete file of this newspaper is in the Library of
Congress, June 11, 1796 — March 24, 1798.
284 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
be two drawings weekly, which led to the editorial comment
in the Gazette that at such a rate it would be ten years before
the drawing was completed. All those holding tickets were
advised to mention them in their wills. This advice was re-
garded as a slur by the writer of a communication in the Centinel
of Liberty, the Georgetown paper, and Editor More defended
not only its correctness, but its wisdom.! The Columbian
Chronicle of Georgetown, after an existence since December,
1793, made its last appearance May 10, 1796. During the
last year of the publication, it was under the sole manage-
ment of Samuel Hanson of Samuel, who was also the cashier
of the Bank of Columbia.? The printing office and good will
of The Chronicle was purchased by Green, English and Co.,
the editor entering the firm as the “Co.” On the 23d of
May, 1796, a paper was issued by this company called the
Centinel of Liberty and Georgetown Advertiser, which like its
predecessor was a semi-weekly. From the same office was
issued a weekly paper, the Centinel and Country Gazette,
containing only matter from the semi-weekly.
The second lottery venture of Blodgett’s continued to be
the target of the Gazette’s sarcasm, which developed in such a
spirit of hostility as to prompt the suggestion of treating the
lottery manager to a coat of tar and feathers. In its columns
also appeared a communication attributed to a visitor to the
city in the course of which the writer states that “in riding
through your city this morning, I was struck, at a great dis-
tance, with the word Hotel inscribed in red letters upon the
front of a magnificent building, half finished.”
The writer concludes from what he has heard of the history
of the edifice that the word was intended to “denote the char-
acter of the founder rather than the destination of the fabric,
and that with this view he selected the initials of the following
1 Washington Gazette, July 16, 1796.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Dec. 16, 1796. Also National Intelligencer,
Sept. 23, 1801.
3 After a period of nearly three years, Mr. Hanson retired from the
business and the publishers were then Green and English. Centinel of
Liberty, July 23, 1799.
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 285
Latin words, ‘Hic omnes turpitudes excedit longe.’”! Such
progress was made in the lottery drawings that the first
prize was drawn by the following spring.2 It was through
the columns of the Gazette that a meeting of citizens was called
to prepare a petition to the Maryland legislature to adopt
some plan for “the policing” of the government of the city
“until Congress assumes the jurisdiction.” * There is no
record of any further action in this direction. While the
population at that time is unknown, yet a year later it was
computed to be 2000.4
Certain municipal functions were vested in the commis-
sioners by the Maryland legislature, as the issue of liquor
licenses and the making of building regulations. The section
of the District where the city was located had as its only other
form of local government the levy court of Prince George
County, composed of seven members selected by the governor
of the state with the advice of the council, from those annually
commissioned as justices of the peace. The function of the
court was to assess property, collect the taxes, look after re-
pairs to the roads and the repair and construction of county
public buildings, take care of bridges, make allowances for the
1 Washington Gazette, Sept. 28, 1796.
2 Centinel of Liberty, March 14, 1797. The Washington contempo-
rary still was impatient about the deliberateness of Blodgett’s lottery
drawing, and in the issue of the Gazette of July 5, appeared the follow-
ing paragraph. ‘‘This day twelvemonth, Washington (alias Blod-
gett’s) Lottery No. 2 commenced drawing but alas it is not finished,
nor is there any reason to suppose it will be until the manager thinks
it convenient.”
3 Washington Gazette, Oct. 5 and 8, 1796.
4The Gazette, Sept. 16, 1797. John Law, a son of Thomas Law,
by his first wife, who came to the city for the first time in 1796 records
twenty-five years later his recollections that ‘‘the area of Washington
then scarcely contained five hundred inhabitants, most of the houses
were mere cabins erected for the temporary use of laborers, the largest
part of the beautiful avenue which connects the principal public edifices
together was an impassable wilderness and the streets were not dis-
tinguished by any visible lines.’”” Ceremonies and oration at the lay-
ing of the corner stone of the city hall, p. 8. Washington, 1820.
In the issue of June 29, 1796, the Gazette mentions the death of a
child, ‘‘said to be the first born in the city of Washington.”’
286 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
support of the poor, appoint constables, overseers, ete. The
constables appointed by the levy court formed the only peace
force available, and there was no change in this form of govern-
ment until the enactment of Feb. 27, 1801, when the new county
of Washington, including the area of the city, was formed.
Then the levy court was continued, but the appointment of the
members was vested in the president of the United States.
Georgetown and Alexandria enjoyed the governmental func-
tions of the incorporated town of the period, while the county
portion of Virginia continued under the county court, which,
like the levy court of Maryland, was composed of the justices of
the peace.!
It is probable it soon became necessary to have a place in
the city for the detention of prisoners awaiting the action of
the county court. At this time there was a jail in Georgetown
where the town constables confined those they had arrested.
Its location was on the site where the market house was built.
According to a tradition a log house at New Jersey Avenue and
D Street, S. E., was used as a jail, and was the first in the city.
Subsequently a structure in the square on the north side of
C Street a short distance east of 6th Street, N. W., was used
for such purposes,” and was continued as a county institution
under the authority of the levy court even after the year 1802,
when a jail was built by a congressional appropriation and
placed under the supervision of the circuit court as the jail of
Washington County.
But a still larger and more ambitious civic scheme was dis-
1A rather curious distinction is shown in two laws passed by the
Maryland assembly. One enacted in December, 1795, authorizing
the Washington City canal lottery, required the managers to give
bond to the commissioners of the city, while in the law of December,
1796, permitting the Georgetown market lottery the bond was to be
given to the state of Maryland.
2 In reminiscences of Washington, by George Watterston, printed
in the Intelligencer, Nov. 29, 1845, it is stated ‘‘The first jail in Wash-
ington was a small brick edifice of three rooms which stood on a lot
adjoining the bath-house on C. Street. [The bath-house was on lot 6,
Square 490, on the north side of C Street, about midway between 43
and 6th streets, N. W.] It has recently been pulled down, having be-
come ruinous and dilapidated.”
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 287
cussed in the fall of 1796. All that has been preserved of this
early local government movement is a paragraph in the Gazette
of March 18, 1797, as follows: “Last Fall it was reported, some
steps were to be taken to have this city incorporated. Has
this plan miscarried or has the child died for want of nourish-
ment?” As far as known, this question was never answered,
and there is no further allusion to the subject. It is interesting
to speculate what the effect would have been in the form of
government provided by congress for the city if it had found
the city supplied with a government, just as was the case with
Georgetown and Alexandria.
At this time Georgetown had reached the stage in the develop-
ment of town life when organized effort was needed for the pro-
tection of property from fire, and so a meeting of “the first fire
company” and “at the engine house”’ was called.
The commissioners, who were familiar with the resources of
the city, were unable to live there because of the lack of suitable
houses. It was their intention, they informed Washington,
May 31, 1796, to establish their homes there “as soon as ever
decent houses could be had.” They were severely criticised
at this time because of their alleged partiality for the section
of the city near the president’s house and Georgetown, and
this was accounted for in part by their living in Georgetown,
where Mr. Law more especially conceived they were more
exposed to such influences than if they had their homes in the
city. Washington refers to this subject in two letters, one
written in May and the other in November, and he states very
positively in the first that it is his expectation that the com-
missioners live in the city, and then in the later letter he informs
them that he expects this “to be done before the building
operations of the coming year are started.” *
Mr. Scott was building a house which he subsequently oc-
eupied and which was located just beyond the bounds of the city,
between Florida Avenue and Rock Creek, a short distance north
1 Centinel of Liberty, March 10, 1797.
2 Washington to the Commissioners, May 22 and Nov. 17, 1796.
War Department Manuscripts.
288 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
of P Street, while early in the following year Dr. Thornton
gave up his house in Georgetown and removed to the city.’
On the 9th of July, 1796, Blodgett wrote to Dr. Thornton, “I
hereby empower you to take possession of the lot No. 7 and
on Square 253 and to remain in the possession thereof for
twelve months for which as the house is not yet completed you
can pay but half the rent, which a reference to indifferent per-
sons may be deemed just for a finished house and in a similar
situation. This rent may be expended in improvements (for
the benefit of the fortunate adventurers who may draw the
house) at your discretion.” ?
“The fortunate adventurers” alluded to by Blodgett were
the holders of the tickets drawing prizes in Federal Lottery
No. 2. At that time there was more than usual competition
for the patronage of persons who risked their money in such
enterprises, for tickets in Canal Lottery No. 1 were then also
being offered for sale.’
In the previous fall the Maryland legislature had authorized
Notley Young, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Lewis Deblois,
George Walker, William M. Duncanson, Thomas Law and James
Barry to raise by two annual lotteries the sum of $52,500 for
the purpose of completing and opening the canal in the city and
making it navigable.*
1““Wm. Thornton offers for sale the brick house opposite the Bank
of Columbia lately occupied by the subscriber (now removed to the
city of Washington).”’ Centinel of Liberty, March 17, 1797. At that
time the Bank of Columbia was in a building on M Street just west of
32d Street, as the structure erected for its use further west on the north
side of M Street near 34th Street was not completed until 1807. The
house was offered for sale three years later by Dr. Thornton (Centinel of
Liberty, June 3, 1800), and was then described as containing four rooms,
one eighteen by twenty feet, three guest rooms, a kitchen and back
building with three rooms.
2 J. Henley Smith Papers. The house known in later years as 1331
F Street, N. W., continued to be the home of Dr. Thornton until his
death.
* Washington Gazette, Nov. 9,1796. The drawing, it was announced,
would commence at Georgetown, Jan. 2, 1797. The same, Dec. 24,
1796.
4“ Yesterday a prize of $10,000 was drawn in the Washington Canal
Lottery No. 1. The fortunate ticket was No. 6747. No. 12,602
° USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 289
The line of the canal was delineated on the L’Enfant map and
also on the engraved map, and was therefore a feature of the
new city from the outset. The space allowed for the canal
itself was eighty feet, while a street of the same width was pro-
vided on each side. When the attempt made by the commis-
sioners to carry out this project was abandoned on account
of want of means, then it was taken up by private enterprise,
and a change was made, by direction of the president, and with
the consent of the property holders who would be affected, in
the course of the line of the east branch of the proposed canal
as distinguished from the one to the west that was to utilize
the course of St. James Creek.
The new course was chosen to avoid the additional cost of
cutting through high ground and was somewhat further to the
east, following 2d Street, E., from about K Street to the Eastern
Branch near the foot of New Jersey Avenue, instead of pursuing a
diagonal course from K Street. However, while the lottery was
drawn, the work was not begun, nor was any account rendered
of the proceeds of the lottery, although the commissioners
called upon the managers for a report and threatened to bring
the matter to the attention of the Maryland legislature. But
no reply was received, and apparently no effort was made to
enforce the liability of the managers under the bond given to
the commissioners. It may be inferred from the character of
the managers there was no surplus after paying the prizes and
the expenses of the lottery.'
Another lottery was authorized, when on the 31st of Decem-
ber, 1796, the Maryland legislature granted the right to John
Threlkeld, Charles A. Beatty and Samuel Turner, Jr., to raise
by lottery the sum of $2000 “to pay for the ground on which the
market house in Georgetown had been erected.” As recited
drew a prize of $1000.’’ Centinel of Liberty, April 21, 1797. Also in
the issue of June 28, 1797, it is stated, a prize of $20,000 was drawn,
while in the issue of July 5, that the drawing had been finished.
1 Commissioners to Notley Young. Commissioners’ Letter Book,
Oct. 30, 1798. Also report of house committee on a petition to incor-
porate the Washington Canal Co., Feb. 11, 1802. American State
Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 258.
VoL. I—U
290 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in the act, several citizens of the town had made contracts for
the purchase of the ground and the erection of the building,
expecting the funds would be secured by the voluntary contri-
butions of the citizens. As it turned out, only sufficient money
was secured to erect the building, “which is so far advanced as
to be useful to the citizens at large.” !
But these were not the only appeals made at that time for
public improvements. The Georgetown Bridge Co. in the fall
of 1796 issued a notice to the subscribers for the stock calling
for an instalment of $60 on each share. The first payment had
been made on the Ist of Nov., 1795, and the instalment payable
Nov. 1, 1796, made the total paid on each share $200. The total
capital stock was four hundred shares. The responsibility in-
curred at that day by those subscribing for stock is indicated by
the notice to delinquents to pay up “or suits will be begun.” ”
In fact, authority was given in the act chartering the company
to pursue that course and also to retain the payments on shares
made by delinquents. The powers of the company were ex-
tended by an act of Dec. 24, 1795, so as to enable it to con-
demn land for a road sixty feet wide extending from Georgetown
to the bridge at the Little Falls. This thoroughfare became
known in later years as the River Road.
The company opened the bridge for public use the middle of
October, 1797, and in their advertisement of that fact and of the
tolls to be charged it was called the Potomak Bridge. The
first description of this pioneer bridge of the large type built
in the District is found in the narrative of the Duke de la
Rochefoucault Liancourt, who saw it in the spring of 1797.
“Above the smaller falls,’ he writes, “at a place where the
Potowmack is confined to a narrow passage between mountains,
a bridge has lately been erected of the same kind as the bridge of
Merrymack near Newburyport in Mass.; the same architect
‘The market house of frame was located on the south side of M
Street, a short distance east of 33d Street.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 11, 1796.
* The same, Oct. 13, 1797. The rates were 3 cents for foot passen-
gers, 8 cents for man and horse, 50 cents for four-wheeled, and 25 cents
for two-wheeled, vehicles.
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 291
was employed on both. The bridge over the Patowmack is 120
feet in the span, . . . but is indeed disgusting for its heaviness,
having an immense quantity of timber and iron wasted on it.”’
He adds that a road is being made along the banks of the river
from Georgetown to the bridge. In the Centinel of Liberty of
July 7, 1797, the advantages of the bridge are noted as chiefly
affording a direct means of communication between the city of
Washington and the farming countries of the northern portion
of Virginia and Maryland. “The enterprise and perseverance
of that most useful and public-spirited citizen, John Temple-
man, who gratuitously engaged in the superintendence of the
work at its commencement” is given the credit for its rapid
construction and success.”
The development of the business interests of the city was
begun at this time, and on a scale that indicated the sanguine
hopes of the projectors. A building of stone had been com-
pleted on the square bounded by 21st, 22d and B streets and the
Potomac River, and here C. Coningham and Co. announced the
product of the Washington Brewery was for sale. Dr. Coning-
ham, who was a native of England, was a practising physician,
but had gone into this business as the active partner with
James Greenleaf. The latter had erected the building where
this pioneer brewery had been established. In the spring of
1797, some six months after the brewery had been opened, and
a short time before he entered the debtors’ jail, Mr. Greenleaf
sold his interest in the concern to his brother-in-law, John
Appleton.* It is probable there was a brewery in Georgetown
1 Travels in North America, Vol. 2, p. 334.
2 William Wirt records as witnessing some fifteen years prior to
this date at his home town in Bladensburg a performance on the tight
rope given by Mr. Templeman, who was then in the course of his
travels as a showman. Forty years later Mr. Wirt ‘‘met in Washing-
ton a well dressed gentleman-like personage some what corpulent,
who was made known to me as the paragon of my childish admiration,
converted into a plain citizen and extensive dealer in city lots.”” Me-
moirs, Philadelphia, 1860, p. 26. He also was a merchant. Centinel of
Liberty, Aug. 22, 1800.
3 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 11, 1796.
4 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 146.
292 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
at this time. At any rate in’an advertisement of sale, the de-
scription indicates that a good-sized building used for such a pur-
pose was located on P Street, west of 35th, in the year 1800."
An enterprise backed by the money of Thomas Law was
started in the year 1797 when a large building for the making
of sugar was erected on the square bounded by Ist, 2d and
M streets and the Eastern Branch, S. E. It was built under
the immediate supervision of James Peircy, who had been en-
gaged in the same business in England. James Barry already
had a store near his wharf at the foot of New Jersey Avenue,
where a ferry had lately been established. Here Joseph Wheat
announced the opening of his new tavern.? Another hostelry
solicited the patronage of the public through an advertisement
signed by Elizabeth Leslie, who named her house the Capitol
Hill Tavern, and while the name is the only clew to its loca-
tion, still that early use of a title which long has been familiar
as the designation of the broad plateau east of the capitol in-
dicates generally its place.
A hotel keeper of a later day also figures in the advertising
columns of the local newspaper, for there is found a card signed
by William O’Neale, who was engaged in the cooper business
and had erected on the north side of I Street, just west of 20th
Street, a three-story brick house, which in subsequent years,
enlarged, became the celebrated Franklin Hotel.’
The Eastern Branch Hotel opened in the fall of 1796 by
William Tunnicliff, an Englishman, also sought for public
patronage, and its location on the south side of Pennsylvania
Avenue, between 8th and 9th streets, S. E., where the building
still stands, was no doubt looked upon at that day as a specially
convenient site, as it was on the road leading from the upper
Eastern Branch Ferry through the city. It was at this hotel
that the Washington Dancing Assembly was held in December
of that year, the earliest affair of the sort in the new city
* Centinel of Liberty, June 6, 1800. It was owned by Caesar Lowry.
2 Washington Gazette, Oct. 18, 1796.
3 The same, June 29 and Nov. 5, 1796.
4 The same, Dec. 14, 1796.
: USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 293
of which there is any record, although there is a notice in
the Gazette (Jan. 28, 1797) that the Washington Amicable
Dancing Assembly will commence February 2d at Scott’s Little
Hotel. It was at the latter place that a birthnight ball was
held on Feb. 22d, and there was one at the Union Tavern
in Georgetown, probably the first of the events that became an
annual custom in Washington as was common in other towns
in observance of the birthday of the first president.
It was thought necessary for the information of those who
desired to attend the assembly in December at the Eastern
Branch Hotel to state that the hotel was “near Mr. Duncan-
son’s.” The latter built a house on the triangular plot of ground
bounded by South Carolina Avenue, D, 6th and 7th streets,
S. E., which still stands, although somewhat changed. Mr.
Duncanson, in addition to the large purchases of city lots, for
which he paid but failed to get the deeds, had formed a partner-
ship with James Ray, a fellow countryman from England, to
carry on a commission business. The principal office was in
Philadelphia, but a branch had been established in Georgetown.
Owing to losses sustained by Mr. Duncanson in city property,
the firm was dissolved in June of the following year! The
provisions for a militia as found in the Maryland laws of the
period were not disregarded even in the beginnings of the
city, and so notices are found, calling a muster “of the members
comprising the Washington artillery at the parade ground on
the President’s Square . . . the members to be in complete
uniform.” ”
This militia company, probably the first in the city, was called
upon to give dignity to a popular demonstration in honor of Gen-
eral Washington, who had just retired from the chief office
in the gift of the nation, as he passed through the city on his
way to his home at Mount Vernon. The artillery company
in command of its captain, James Hoban, met the ex-president
1 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 224.
2 Washington Gazette, Nov. 9, 1796. Benjamin Ogle Tayloe, “In
Memoriam,” p. 150, Washington, 1872, states that in the early years
the militia musters were held in Lafayette Square. Originally that
space formed a part of what was known as the President's Square.
294 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
when he reached the capitol and saluted him with a discharge
of cannon. General Washington probably went to the home
of Thomas Law on New Jersey Avenue, where he dined, and
was then “escorted to Georgetown by several of our most re-
spectable citizens. As he passed the president’s house a
salute of sixteen guns was fired by the said company.” ?
Further evidence of the progress of the city is to be found in
the compliance at this time with one of the terms under which
the owners of the land comprised within the bounds of the
city parted with their holdings. It was stipulated by the deeds
executed in 1791 that if the arrangement of the streets per-
mitted, the proprietors were to retain their houses and buildings
and graveyards by the payment of half the amount the United
States had agreed to pay for land reserved for public uses.
In the event it was necessary to remove these buildings then the
owners were to be paid their reasonable value.” In accordance
with these provisions the commissioners directed the land thus
improved be deeded to the proprietors. At this time such
action was taken in the case of ten proprietors, and with one
exception the entire square where the buildings were located
was deeded and in some instances more than one square.*
1 Washington Gazette, March 15, 1797.
In the issue of Oct. 13 are notices for the battalions comprising the
18th Regiment “to meet at the old fields near Mr. Carrolls”’ and for
the Georgetown Troop of Horse “to meet at the parade ground near
Mr. Dorseys.”’
2 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 221. Copy of a
deed of trust for land in the city of Washington.
3'The list is as follows: Notley Young’s buildings, together with
Squares 329, 355, 356, 389, 390, 391, 415, S. of 415 and 439,S.W.; Com-
fort Sands and Dominick Lynch, Square 449, L and M, 6th and 7th
streets, N. W.; Wm. Prout, Squares 906 and 907, between 11th and
12th, B and C; streets, N. E.; Ruth Ann Young, Square 1106, 17th
and 18th and H streets and Eastern Branch, S. E.; Abraham Young,
one-half of Square 1053 and Square 1054, 14th, 15th, C and E streets,
N.E.; David Burnes, Square 375, 9th and 10th, G and H streets,
N.W.; George Walker, Square 862, D, E, 6th and 7th streets, N. E.;
John Davidson, Square 284, 12th, 13th, K and L streets, N. W.;
James M. Lingan, four lots in Square 139 between M, N and 19th
streets, and Connecticut Avenue, N. W.; Daniel Carroll, Square 736,
between Ist, 2d, E and F streets, S. EB.
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 295
The method adopted, at least in one instance, in clearing from
the ground the trees which contemporary accounts agree
covered a great part of it, is indicated by an advertisement that
“all the wood standing on 150 acres of land in the city of Wash-
ington near the Little Hotel and belonging to Messrs. Comfort
and Sands,” is for sale.4
An early notice of an association of mechanics, probably it
was not a labor organization but a fraternal and benevolent
association, is found in the Gazette of Dec. 23, 1796, where
“the members of the Carpenters Society are requested to at-
tend at Mr. Vaughan’s tavern.”
Early in the year 1797 the affairs of Messrs. Morris and
Nicholson had reached such an acute stage that a large quantity
of their paper was advertised to be sold at public sale at George-
town.” It is presumed, this was a portion of the notes given in
the purchase of lots from individuals, and while in that case
the transaction did not affect the commissioners, yet they had
an abundance of troubles of their own, arising from the same
source. There was first of all a controversy with Thomas
Law, who demanded from the commissioners a fee simple
title to lots he had bought from Morris, Nicholson and Green-
leaf, free from the provision of the agreement made on behalf
of the public with these gentlemen that in the event of their
making a sale of any of the lots prior to Jan. 1, 1796, a house
must be built on every third lot. But the commissioners
maintained that the only security they had to enforce the
building requirement on individual purchasers was the inser-
tion of such a condition in the deed.
As for the thousand lots deeded to Morris and Nicholson to
enable them to obtain a loan, they argued that the building
condition as well as the payment for the lots was secured by
It may be added that while these properties are classed as the
homes of the original proprietors the latter term is used to designate
the owners at the time when the division of the land was made and
therefore in all instances, they were not those who owned or occupied
the land when the site of the city was chosen.
1 Washington Gazette, Nov. 30, 1796.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Jan. 27, 1797.
296 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the bond of the syndicate. This contention of the city author-
ities was upheld by the attorney-general. But it was only
the beginning of a course of events that had its origin in the
change in the policy of the original agreement with the three
principal purchasers; namely, relaxing the requirement of either
cash in transactions, or else the security of the land itself.
Certificates were issued to Morris and Nicholson for lots and
they were in turn used by them as security and transferred to
others, so that important questions arose when the certifi-
cates or script, as they were termed, were presented by third
parties in exchange for deeds.
It was in February, 1797, that the commissioners began the
second sale of the property of delinquents, the first having been
held in the previous October, to enforce the terms of the con-
tract of sale against such purchasers. In this specific instance,
the proceedings of the commissioners show that out of fourteen
lots offered for sale six were bought in —a side light on the
market for Washington realty that reveals the condition
better than mere statements. As it was only expected on such
occasions to realize from the sales the amounts due to the
commissioners and as even under such circumstances the
demand was slight, the situation was not of promising character.
At this time Samuel Davidson, who became the purchaser of
ground which included a portion of the President’s Square, and
the section now known as Lafayette Square, and as the owner
of such land came into the original agreement of cession, made
his first protest against the plan of the city as it was then being
carried out, alleging that it differed materially from L’Enfant’s
plan, which he asserted was the one on which the agreement
of the original landowners was based. Mr. Davidson’s motive
was attributed by the commissioners, who rejected his claim,
to his desire to add to his holdings in the vicinity of the Pres-
ident’s Square.!
‘ Report to the house of representatives on the disputes between
the commissioners and persons who conceive themselves injured
by alterations made in the plan of the city. 7th Cong., 1st Sess.,
No. 157, April 8, 1802. American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1,
p. 330. Mr. Davidson appealed to Washington, and then with others
f USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 297
The previous fall the commissioners were drawn into a news-
paper controversy with George Walker, a property holder
in the eastern section of the city, who branched off from a
grievance of his own into a general arraignment of the man-
agement of the city affairs. The charges were made with
boldness and the replies of the commissioners were spirited.
In addition to the advertised sale of the notes of Morris and
Greenleaf, another symptom of the financial condition of the
big operators in city property is to be found in “a caution,”
signed John Nicholson, to prospective purchasers of shares in
the North American Land Company, offered by the assignees of
James Greenleaf, as Nicholson asserted these shares were his
property.” It may be noted that this sale was to be held in
Clement Sewall’s Tavern in Georgetown, where the Morris
notes were also advertised to be sold, and it may be concluded
from the open war that was soon proclaimed between Nicholson
and Greenleaf, with Morris fruitlessly taking the part of peace-
maker, but then as always the friend of Nicholson, there was
some motive in bringing to the Georgetown market the shares
in the company that had been formed as one method of financing
the extensive land purchases in various portions of the country
made by Morris and Nicholson. But events of this general
character followed each other rapidly, and some ten days later
Greenleaf cautioned the commissioners against making further
conveyances of lots to Morris and Nicholson without his consent,
for, as it will be recalled, he sold out his interest in the Wash-
ington venture to his two associates and received in payment
their paper.
In the meantime Nicholson and Greenleaf followed up their
respective “cautions,” with an acrimonious and_ personal
newspaper controversy.’
to President Adams and again to President Jefferson, and finally the
matter was brought to the attention of congress, but in no instance
was the desired result attained.
1The entire correspondence appeared in the Washington Gazette,
Nov. 19, 23, 26-30, 1796.
2 Washington Gazette, March 11, 1797.
’'The columns of the Washington Gazette were the medium and the
discussion reversed the dictum of Matthew Arnold of light without
298 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
On the last day of May an advertisement was inserted in
the newspapers offering for sale a long list of lots belonging to
Morris and Nicholson, to be sold in default of the payment of
the third instalment of the purchase money. The sale was not
to be held until the early part of August, but a few weeks later,
on the 26th of June, 1797, the final crash of the great specula-
tive structure came in an assignment by Morris and Nicholson
of their property interests in the new city to the trustees of
what came to be known as “the aggregate fund, Henry Pratt
and others, trustees.’ In this assignment the interests of
Mr. Greenleaf were also included.!. By October Greenleaf
was in a debtor’s prison in Philadelphia, where Morris and
Nicholson, after maintaining a siege of several months in their
houses against a host of constables who were trying to serve
processes, joined him. Greenleaf in the course of a year man-
aged through bankruptcy proceedings to get a release from
the debtor’s prison, but Nicholson died in prison in Decem-
ber, 1800, and Morris, after a prison experience of three and
a half years, regained his liberty in August, 1801,
The inevitable result of such a financial collapse, endless
litigation, clouding the titles to property and depreciating it
in the confidence of the public was felt in the new city for
many a year, as fully half a century passed before the legal
complications were untangled.*? But at the outset it was felt
heat. Just how the two belabored each other can be seen in the Gazette
issues of March 11 and 30 and various dates through April 26, 1797.
1 Formal notice signed by the trustees that they ‘“‘having accepted
assignments from Messrs. Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf of all their
and each of their rights, legal and equitable, in the city of Washington,
ete.” Centinel of Liberty, Oct. 13, 1797.
2 Greenleaf was made attorney in fact of the aggregate fund by Pratt
and other trustees Jan. 18, 1804 and April 8, 1805. The first suit
growing out of the syndicate affairs was filed in the circuit court of the
District, March 24, 1801, the day after the organization of the court.
Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, pp. 184-185.
3 The records of the various cases are to be found in the clerk’s office
of the supreme court of the District and in the clerk’s office of the
United States Supreme Court. In the case of Mr. Law the record is
found in Pratt vs. Law, while the affairs of the syndicate are detailed
in the cases of Pratt and others against various individuals.
P USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 299
that the property would be sufficient to meet the claims of
creditors of the three insolvents. This was the view evi-
dently of the trustees of Morris and Nicholson, for they at
once sent a draft to the commissioners in part payment of
the instalment of the purchase money due and the sale of the
property was discontinued by the commissioners in the ex-
pectation that the money would be forthcoming for the
balance. At this time William H. Dorsey, a resident of
Georgetown and a considerable owner of property, was the
representative of the trustees. The commissioners, however,
announced if the payments were not made, they would
resell the property in accordance with the provisions of the
Maryland law, and in this decision they were upheld by the
opinion of the attorney-general.
But while this last recourse was deferred for a time in the
case of the syndicate, the sale of lots of other delinquent pur-
chasers was continued daily for about two weeks.! In a num-
ber of instances at these sales no bid was received at all for
some of the lots offered and they were added to the list of lots
prepared for the next day’s sale.
As there was no market for the city property and no money
realized from the efforts made to place a loan in Holland the
commissioners, towards the close of the year 1797, in order to
provide funds for beginning the work of the new season, as well
as to secure a supply of building material, again applied to the
legislature of Maryland for another loan of $100,000, under the
provisions of the act of congress. The request was granted,
and United States six per cent stock of the par value of
$100,000 was secured, but as the market price of the steck had
but slightly improved, the amount realized was about eighty-
four cents on the dollar.’
Before the year 1797 closed, a change of consequence was
made in the corps of surveyors employed by the city. Wash-
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Oct. 18—Nov. 2, 1797.
2 The net proceeds of the two Maryland loans aggregating $200,000
was $169,873. Report of Commissioners, Jan. 28, 1801. American
State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 220.
300 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ington Boyd, who had been in the surveying department
since April 15, 1794, was placed in charge of the books and
papers in the surveyor’s office heretofore under the care of
James R. Dermott, who was discharged. The resignation of
Nicholas King, who came to this country from England in the
spring of 1796, was accepted, to take effect Sept. 12, 1797.
On the latter date he was succeeded by his father, Robert King,
Sr., who had just arrived in this country from England. He
was accompanied by another son, Robert King, Jr., who later
on entered the service of the city in the surveying department.!
Nicholas King gave up his public office in order to devote
his time to private work. He was employed by Robert Peter
and also Morris and Nicholson to look after their land business.
It is probable he was the founder of the first library in the
1A list of the principal men employed in the surveying department
of the city from the beginning, taken from a manuscript list prepared
by Captain John Stewart, for many years in charge of the city records
in the office of the commissioner of public buildings and grounds, is
as follows: Andrew Ellicott, Feb. 4, 1791 to July 19, 1793; Peter
Charles L’Enfant, March 7, 1791 to March 6, 1792; Benjamin Ellicott,
April 4, 1791 to Jan. 28, 1794; Ignatius Fenwick, Oct. 21, 1791 to
Jan. 10, 1792; Richard Johns, Oct. 21, 1791 to July 4, 1792; Thomas
Ormes, to Feb. 16, 1792; Jas. R. Dermott, March 4, 1792, to
Jan. 3, 1798; Bennett Fenwick, Dec. to Sept. 20, 17938; Isaac
Briggs, June 6, 1792 to Oct. 22, 1793; Thomas Curtis, June 6, 1792 to
Oct. 21, 1793; George Fenwick, Aug. 3, 1792 to Nov. 30, 1793;
Joseph Ellicott, Jan. 1, 1792 to Jan. 25, 1794; Alexander Ralston,
June 17, 1793 to Oct. 15, 1796; Thomas Freeman, March 25, 1794 to
July 7, 1796; Washington Boyd, April 15, 1794 to May 1, 1798;
James Blois, June 1, 1794 to Jan. 2, 1795; Nicholas King, Sept. 24,
1796 to Sept. 12, 1797; Robert King, Sr., Sept. 12, 1797 to Aug. 13,
1802; Robert King, Jr., Aug. 21, 1800 to Aug. 13, 1801.
The office of surveyor of the city was created by the law of March 3,
1803, and the duties were defined by the law of Jan. 12,1809. The list
of surveyors appointed by the superintendent of the city is as follows :
Nicholas King, June 1, 1803 to May, 1812; Robert King, Jr., May 21,
1813 to March 14, 1815; Benjamin H. Latrobe and Robert King,
Sept. 5, 1815.
Robert King, Sr., returned to England shortly after his work in the
city ended and he died there. His twosons and a daughter, Jane King,
remained in the city. The latter married John Lenthal and their
daughter Elizabeth married William J. Stone. Mrs. Elizabeth J.
Stone. Sketch by Helen W. Burnside. Washington, 1893.
3 USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 301
city, as he is mentioned as librarian of the Washington Library
in a notice in January, 1797, to subscribers that their half year
subscriptions were due. As he had been in the city at that
date less than a year, it may be concluded, if he was the
organizer of the library that it was started some time in
August, 1796. On Jan. 17, 1798, the Virginia legislature
granted a charter to the Library Company in the town of
Alexandria and by an act of the following year the
name was changed to the Alexandria Library Company.
It may be inferred from the language of the preamble of this
Virginia law the library had been in existence some time prior
to this enactment.
Two years before the opening of the Washington Library,
the Columbian Library had been established in Georgetown,
taking its name from the Columbian Academy, and it might
also be surmised its initiative from the public spirit of the foun-
der of the academy, Rev. Stephen Bloomer Balch.”
The location of the library in Georgetown, at the Columbian
Academy, identifies this pioneer collection of books for general
uses with one of the earliest educational institutions in the
District, as the latter is said to have been founded by Rev.
Mr. Balch shortly after he came to Georgetown, in the year
1782. It was probably this school which was continued by
John Richmond, whe in the spring of 1797 announced the
opening of a school, “in the lower part of Scotch Row at
Mr. Balch’s, Georgetown,” 32d Street, south of M Street,?
and a few months later made known his intention of
opening a night school in the same place.* The previous
December, Rev. Alexander T. McCormick, “‘ successor to
the Rev. George Ralph,” gave notice that he was prepared
to receive day scholars “and a few boarders,” and that he can
be found at “the President’s Square near the Little Hotel.” ®
1 Washington Gazette, Jan. 18, 1797.
2 National Intelligencer, July 8, 1801. Notice of the Columbian
Library, ‘‘established seven years ago in the Columbian Academy.”
3 Washington Gazette, March 27, 1797.
4The same, Nov. 17, 1797.
5 The same, Dec. 14, 1796.
302 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Ralph had become the principal of the Charlotte Hall
School in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, and Mr. McCormick
succeeded him as rector of Christ Church, as well as principal
of the school. When the school was opened under the direction
of Mr. McCormick it was in a building near the capitol. There
is no record of another school in the city at that period.
It is quite evident that the state of the real estate market,
due no doubt in part to the collapse of the syndicate and its
influence upon the public expenditures as well as the extremes
to which speculation in city lots had gone, was beginning to be
felt at thistime. The writer of a communication in the Gazette!
speaks of the lack of confidence in the future of the city which
he attributes “ largely to a doubt of the wisdom of the manage-
ment of the city funds. The enthusiastic spirit,” the writer
adds, “in which the operations of the city commenced, opened
a wide field for speculation which has been practised in all its
various forms and has terminated in the ruin of all those who
were drawn into its vortex, whose capital and talents were
inferior to others.” The Duke de Liancourt, as it will be re-
called, attributes the falling off in the business of Georgetown
to the diversion of the capital that was needed to carry it on
to speculation in city lots. However, the editor of the paper
had personal reasons for sympathizing with the estimate of
city affairs made by his correspondent, for a few weeks later
on” he informed his readers, “that the Washington Gazette
will not be published again until the publication is attended
with some profit to the publisher . . . nothing but the want of
money stops the paper.” After the heat of summer had passed
the editor felt encouraged to try his fortunes again, and so on
the 16th of September, his paper once more appeared, but as a
weekly instead of a semi-weekly. In characteristic vein he
addresses the public in the first issue as follows: “The Wash-
ington Gazette again makes its appearance and the editor hopes
to receive that encouragement from the public which will
enable him to continue the publication uninterrupted until he
1 June 3, 1797.
* Washington Gazette, July 26, 1797 and Sept. 16, 1797.
» USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 303
shall be able from experience to sing of mercy as well as of
judgment.” But in scarcely six months his valedictory,
brief though touching, appeared in the issue of March 24, 1798.
“T shall not be able,” he writes, “to continue the publication
of the Washington Gazette, except some friend lend a helping
hand. Hope has led me into a thicket of difficulties and ap-
pears to be departing from me.”’
In Alexandria the patronage given to a newspaper at this
period was on a more liberal scale than in Washington or was
the editor of the Washington Gazette of too mischievous and
combative turn of mind to secure for his paper the available
patronage. Certainly as it was made the vehicle of the sar-
casm and perhaps to some degree the ill nature of George
Walker against the city authorities and was rather free in
comments on local affairs, some color is given to such a con-
elusion.?
There were, however, more people and more business in
Alexandria, and even with a more conservative policy, the
Gazette could hardly have enjoyed the measure of prosperity
of the Alexandria Times, which was enabled to blossom out as
a daily, in the spring of 1797. It had the further distinction
of being the first daily published in the territory of the District,
and as it proved, several years elapsed before a second attempt
was made.”
1It may be concluded from the following advertisement that the
Benjamin More mentioned was the editor of the Gazette who returned
to his old occupation of a retail merchant.
‘‘Benjamin More, New Jersey Avenue, City of Washington, has for
sale salmon, Boston Bay mackerel, playing cards, apples, and vinegar,
cheese and groceries, crockery, ete.”’ Centinel of Liberty, Dec. 31, 1799.
2The Times and Alexandria Advertiser began its career in 1792 as
a tri-weekly, and on the 10th of May, 1797, began daily issues. Har-
vard Library, Nov. 11, 1797 (Vol. 1, No. 186) to Jan. 8, 1798 (Vol. 1,
No. 275). In the issue of April 10, 1798, the occurrence of the first
anniversary of the daily is mentioned, and thanks are returned to its
patrons ‘‘ by whose assistance we have effected so expensive and hazard-
ous undertaking as the establishment of a daily newspaper in this
place.” At that time the Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette,
which began in 1792, was still published and as a tri-weekly. Henry
Gird, Jr., editor.
304 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
In spite of hard times the people did not forego that popular
sport, horse racing, which began as early as 1769 in George-
town.!
In the spring of 1797, a great race was run on the course just
west of the President’s Square, four mile heats for 500 guineas,
between horses owned by Charles Ridgeley and John Tayloe,
a contest between the states of Maryland and Virginia which
was won by the Virginia horse, owned by Mr. Tayloe. At
the west end of what is now Lafayette Park was an oval-shaped
course which crossed Pennsylvania Avenue, at 17th Street, and
also at 20th Street, the judges’ stand being about on the line
of F Street, between 17th and 18th streets, N. W.?
In the fall of the same year another racing exhibition was
given at the race ground near “the Eastern Branch Hotel.” *
There were, however, some phases in the development of the
city which gave promise of what seemed a bright future. As,
for example, the announcement in the Gazette under date of
April 22, 1797, that “last week sailed from Barry’s wharf,
Eastern Branch Harbor, the ship Maryland, burthen nearly
400 tons, laden with bread and flour bound to Ionic ports for
the benefit of the owners.
“The above ship is noticed as the first which has sailed from
the city of Washington full and bound to a foreign port.”’ In
the immediate vicinity of the wharf the walls of the sugar
making establishment were rising, and its backer, Thomas Law,
no doubt saw in his fancy a whole fleet of vessels on the Eastern
Branch to be laden with articles for the markets of the world.*
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. XI, p. 164.
2In Memoriam. Benjamin Ogle Tayloe. Washington, 1872,
p. 152. Centinel of Liberty, April 4, 1797.
3 Washington Gazette, Oct. 21, 1797.
*“On Thursday last arrived the sloop Eliza from Baltimore with
sugar, etc., for the new refinery lately built in this city by Mr. James
Piercy.” The Centinel, March 2, 1798. In the Alexandria Times
and Advertiser of April 10, 1798, is an announcement signed by Mr.
Piercy that in the course of a few days he will have ready for delivery
at his sugar house a large quantity of loaf and lump sugar. He speaks
of himself as having owned for a number of years one of the first and
largest refineries in London. He offered to take flour in exchange for
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 305
A week later a daily boat line was established from Barry’s
wharf to Alexandria! It was in the summer of 1797, the
third epidemic of yellow fever since Philadelphia had be-
come the seat of the new government broke out in that
city. But unlike the experience during the visitations
of this scourge in 1793 and 1795, a panic seized the people
and there was a general exodus from the city. Even
some of the places of business were moved to other towns.
The public offices in the city were removed to near-by places.
The war office was located at the Falls of the Schuylkill, the
treasury at Grays, the state department at Trenton, while
the post-office was quartered in a stable outside the limits of
the city.
The yellow fever also raged in Baltimore, and the conditions
prevailing in those places led to offers on the part of humane
citizens of Washington of rooms free of rent for the use of
families thus driven from their homes. The editor of the
Gazette, in commenting on this phase of the situation, stated
that “as there are a number of buildings in the city at present
unoccupied such example is worthy of imitation.”* This
lead to a communication signed “a citizen,’ suggesting
by means “of a public meeting or otherwise a codperation
of the commissioners, proprietors, monied men and every man
who feels himself interested, to get the city in such a condition
that the Congress can meet here early in November.” * There
is no record of further action, as no doubt it was realized that
it would be impracticable with the limited means at hand to
be prepared for the coming of congress at such an early date.
sugar, intending to send it to Havanna on the vessels that came to the
Eastern Branch laden with sugar cane.
1 Washington Gazette, May 6, 1797.
2 History of the People of the United States. J. B. McMaster,
Vol. 2, p. 349. In the summer of 1799, during a similar outbreak,
all of the executive departments were removed to Trenton, N.J., and
the extra expenses incurred, including the additional outlay on the part
of the government employees, were reimbursed in the appropriation
bill approved May 7, 1800.
* Sept. 30, 1797.
4 Washington Gazette, Oct. 14, 1797.
VOD, 1s
306 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
At this time the only public buildings in course of construc-
tion were the capitol and the president’s house. Early in the
year plans prepared by George Hadfield had been sent to the
president for his approval of two buildings to be located on
each side of the president’s house “appearing as wings” of
that building, one for the treasury department, and the other
for the state, navy and post-office departments.’
The location of these buildings along the extension of the
south line of the president’s house was finally determined by
the president when he stopped in the city on his way north
from Mount Vernon, the latter part of October, 1796. While
the vicinity of the president’s house was mentioned by the
president as early as 1791, in the course of his conference with
the landowners, as the place he designed for the buildings for
the executive departments, yet, some years later a difference
of recollection was brought out as to what was said on that
occasion and on that subject by President Washington.? It
may also be noted that two of those present at the confer-
ence in 1791, who later on were confident that the vicinity of
the president’s house was at that early date the designated
location, were both owners of property in that general section,
while on the other hand, those who maintained the vicinity of
the capitol was favored by the first president were interested
in the eastern end of the city. Apparently the personal equa-
tion was a factor of some consequence. However, the history
of those early meetings of the landholders has been fully set
forth in the preceding pages, and shows that beyond doubt
Washington in the year 1796 merely put into execution the
opinions he expressed in the year 1791.
President Adams also differed from his predecessor on this
question, holding that a location near the capitol would prove
a convenience to the members of congress, while General Wash-
ington, on the other hand, from the same premises reached an
1 Proceedings of the Commissioners, Jan. 31, 1797.
? Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 7, p. 137. Extracts are given from a report
sent Feb. 6, 1818, to the house of representatives by Samuel Lane,
commissioner of public buildings. Also letter of Daniel Carroll to
the house committee on public buildings. March 21, 1818, 14th Cong.
. USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 307
opposite conclusion, as he believed that ease of access to the
executive departments for members of congress resulted in
interruptions and delay in the public business.
While the plans for the executive buildings had been approved
by President Washington a few months before he retired from
office in the year 1797, yet it was not until more than a year
later that active building operations were begun. It may be
concluded that this delay was due to lack of funds, for while
a second loan of $100,000 had been secured from Maryland
in the closing month of 1797, yet it was apparent that additional
funds were needed, and so in March, 1798, Alexander White,
who had been in charge of the loan bill of 1796 went to Phila-
delphia on a somewhat similar errand.
In April an application was made to congress for money to
complete the public buildings. The house voted a loan of
$200,000, which was cut in half by the senate, and in that form
became a law. It is rather singular that in both houses this
measure was acted upon without debate. As the law itself
expresses it the amount to be loaned was “in full of the moneys
which the said commissioners are now authorized to borrow,”
namely $300,000, and two-thirds of that had already been
secured from the state of Maryland.
That the city lots had a loanable value was fully believed by
the members of congress, as that was the security upon which
was based the appropriation of $50,000 for the present year
and $50,000 for the next year. These amounts, it was stipu-
lated, should be reimbursed in instalments of one-fifth part,
beginning in the year 1805 and annually until the whole was
repaid.
While there was no discussion of the affairs of the city on
the floor of the house, it is apparent from Mr. White’s long and
gossipy letters to his colleagues that there was an abundance
of talk among the members of the committees and the legis-
lators generally... It is also evident that other interests
1 Alexander White to the Commissioners, March 8 and 11, 1798.
Commissioners’ Letter Book. Also American State Papers, Miscella-
neous, Vol. 1, p. 481.
308 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in the city besides the commissioners were represented in
Philadelphia, “mostly savoring of the clashing interests
which have caused so much discord in Washington,” writes
Mr. White. Some proposed, he adds with evident dismay,
that a small house be erected near the capitol for the presi-
dent with the executive offices in the same vicinity and
some wish that house to be the permanent and others the
temporary residence of the president. The plan of those that
would locate the president’s house near the capitol was to fit
up the building then being erected for the president’s house, for
the use of the judiciary.
Then again there were those, according to Mr. White, who
would have congress sit in the president’s house, and in that
event, it would not be necessary to finish the capitol. The
committee was called upon to vote down amendments which
proposed first the grouping of all public structures except for
the judiciary about the capitol and then a similar grouping
about the president’s house, before the way was cleared to act
upon what after all was the main proposition, aid from the
national treasury. While in terms the money secured for the
city by the law of April 18, 1798, was a loan and not a direct
appropriation, yet in effect that is what it really was and there-
fore it is the first in the long list of enactments authorizing the
expenditure of public funds in the city of Washington.!
In opposition to the proposed change in the plan of the city
the commissioners advanced the argument, at a later date
used by individual property holders, as to the equity of the
government making a change in the uses of a public appropria-
tion or disposing of it entirely, when property has been sold,
because of its proximity to such public property. As the cor-
respondence shows, President Adams was inclined to a plan
of having the public offices near the capitol. However, as
1In spite of the utter failure to make any change in the location of
the public buildings, another effort was made in January, 1803, and the
house appointed a committee to consider the expediency of concentrat-
ing the buildings, which, however, only resulted in a report against any
change and for the time the matter rested. Report of Committee,
Feb. 13, 1803. American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 344.
- USE OF THE RESERVATIONS 309
stated, none of the notions about the location of the public
buildings found its way into the act which became a law and
subsequently President Adams gave his approval to the execu-
tion by the commissioners of the plans already begun.’
1 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 484.
CHAPTER XII
A PERIOD OF BUILDING
TuE spring of 1798, two years from the time fixed upon for
the removal of the government to the new city was a period
of renewed activity in building operations — a time when more
was done in the way of providing buildings than in the year
1794, when Greenleaf started the movement by the expenditure
of considerable sums in brick and mortar. The modern centre
of such operations, the office of the building inspector, was in the
early days to be found in the surveying department, where
prospective builders were required to go and get what was
called then the levels of their lots and also to have their plans
examined to determine whether or not they conformed to the
building regulations. It was at this time that William Tunni-
cliff, the proprietor of the Eastern Branch Hotel, in connection
with George Walker, began the erection of a building for a hotel
on A Street, just east of the southeast corner of Ist and A
streets, N. E., the adjoining corner lot being occupied in later
years by the structure known as the Brick Capitol and later
as the Capitol Prison. As the new building was on the post
road through the city and also within easy distance of the
capitol building, the motive which prompted the change can
be traced in the greater importance of nearness to the great
highway between the north and the south rather than to a
road that carried the travel between southern Maryland and
the new city. The Eastern Branch Hotel was in comparison
in an inferior place, while in addition it was far removed from
the capitol building, which shortly was expected to become
such a great centre. A year later the new structure, called
the Washington City Hotel, was ready for business.
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Sept. 27, 1799.
2 The same, May 16, 1798.
310
, A PERIOD OF BUILDING 311
The lots at the southeast corner of 11th and G streets, N. W.,
and at the northwest corner of 10th and F streets, in the same
square were prepared for building at the request of Peter Lenox,
who was employed at the president’s house as foreman and was
also engaged in the lumber business. A wide frontage on the
north side of Virginia Avenue, between 3d and 4th streets, S. E.,
was secured by Frederick May for improvement! while the
lot at the northeast corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street,
S. E., was ordered to be laid off for William Lovering for
erecting a building.2 If Mr. Lovering was the principal in
this enterprise and not merely the architect, he did not carry
it out, as a house was built there in the latter part of 1799 by
Thomas Law, who occupied it as his residence early the fol-
lowing year.
A few days after Mr. Lovering was granted a permit to
build authority was also given to Thomas Law to make im-
provements at the northwest corner of New Jersey Avenue,
and E Street, S. E., which was the beginning of the erection of
a row of two-story houses, known as the Ten Buildings. A
building permit was also given to Mr. Law for the erection of
buildings at the northwest corner of South Capitol and M
streets.? A building permit was secured in behalf of General
Washington,’ for the erection of two houses on the west side of
North Capitol Street, between Band Cstreets. The lot, fifty-four
feet, eight inches front, had just been purchased from the com-
missioners by General Washington for ten cents per square foot.
One-third of $535.70, which was the purchase money, was paid
in cash and the balance in two annual instalments without
interest, the usual terms of sale of public property. The
building was intended for use either as one house or two
according to the plans made at the suggestion of General
Washington, by Dr. William Thornton, who also superintended
the building and paid all the bills. “To aid in the accommoda-
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, June 2, 1798.
2 The same, Sept. 12, 1798.
3 The same, Oct. 1, 1798.
4 The same, Sept. 24, 1798.
312 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tion of the members of the géneral government,” the first pres-
ident informed Dr. Thornton, “was my only inducement to
plan these buildings. For my own convenience,” he adds,
“another site will be chosen, when, if ever, I am in circum-
stances to encourage the expense.”1! The first president
was then within a few months of his death, and as far as
known, he made no further reference to what seems to have
been a purpose, then cherished, to have a residence in the
new city.
But, as he stated, the immediate purpose of this expenditure
was to add to the housing accommodations of the city, and no
doubt that was also the underlying motive of a loan he had
just made in connection with Thomas Law, secured by a mort-
gage on the hotel building that was being erected near the
corner of 1st and A streets, N. E.?
In the middle of the block on 1st Street, between East Capitol
and A streets, S. E., was the site selected by Daniel Car-
roll for building,? but he did not begin the erection of a struc-
ture there until the year 1805, when he built a hotel, which in
later years was a part of what was known as Carroll Row.
At this time, too, Mr. Carroll contemplated a large building
scheme to cover the entire south front of the square now a
part of the capitol grounds that then extended from Delaware
Avenue to Ist Street, and between A and B streets, N. E.,
and to a large extent he carried it out during the early years
of the next century.
A location that became of historic interest, at this period,
passed into the hands of the man who built there a house from
which was fired the only shot against the advancing forces of
the British, after they left the battle-field of Bladensburg in
the summer of 1814. The site in question was the lot adjoin-
ing on the west the northwest corner of Maryland Avenue
1 Washington to Dr. Thornton, Mount Vernon, October, 1799.
J. Henley Smith Papers.
2 The mortgage, and the fact that it had been paid, was mentioned
in a deed of August, 1804, by George Walker and William Tunnicliff
to Pontius D. Stelle.
3 Proceedings of Commissioners, Oct. 8, 1798.
, A PERIOD OF BUILDING 313
and 2d Street, N. E. This was purchased by Robert Sewall
at the sale of Jan. 29, 1799.
It is not presumed that all the buildings mentioned were
erected at that time. Prospective builders were encouraged
by the commissioners, who offered a reduction in the scale of
prices for lots of one cent a square foot, in the event improve-
ments were made.’ In the summer of 1799 the foundations
were laid for a building that was destined to be famous among
the taverns of the city of that period. It was then that Bennet
Fenwick procured the levels for the lot at the northeast corner
of 15th and F streets, N. W., but the building erected there
was not used for tavern purposes until sometime in the
year 1801, when it was leased by William Rhodes, who since
the opening of the year 1799 had kept the Little Hotel on
the north side of F Street, a short distance east from 15th
Street.”
By the fall of 1798 such progress had been made in the erec-
tion of the public buildings that the exterior of the president’s
house had been completed, so that the workmen were engaged
“in cleaning down and painting the wall of the building
and striking the scaffolds.” * The entire roof of the capitol,
that is, of course, the north wing, the only part then built,
was “boarded, shingled, and painted.’ 4
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, July 22, 1799.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Jan. 4, 1799.
3 As it is commonly supposed the popular name of the president’s
house, the White House, is due to the painting of the walls to conceal
the smoke stains after the building was burned in 1814 by the British,
this quotation from Mr. Hoban’s report is of value as showing that the
walls were painted at the very outset. However, the name was in
current use prior to the destruction of the building.
4 Letter from the secretary of the treasury, accompanying a report
from the commissioners of the city of Washington, exhibiting a view of
the receipts and expenditures from May 18 to Nov. 18, 1798. This
is one of the half yearly reports from the commissioners as required
by the loan guarantee law of 1796. The first was for the period
from May 18 to Nov. 18, 1796, and they were continued down to
Nov. 18, 1801. The board went out of existence June 1, 1802, but
there is no record of a report for the last six months of its adminis-
tration.
314 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The commissioners felt justified in beginning the erection
of one of the proposed executive buildings. The treasury
was the one selected, and by the middle of November, 1798,
“the foundation of that building, which was one hundred and
forty-seven feet long and fifty-seven feet six inches wide is
dug out.” ! The site selected was east of and parallel with the
south front of the president’s house. The character of this
structure reflects the state of the finances of the city. It had
only two stories and an attic, and contained fifteen office rooms
on each floor. Brick, the cheapest building material, was
used in the walls and stone was employed sparingly. There
is no picture of this pioneer department building except one,
showing the east front on 15th Street, and also a crude woodcut
that appeared for the first time in the National Calendar of
1820, published by Peter Force. A contract was made with
Leonard Harbaugh to erect the building for the sum of $39,511,
and to have it completed by the first of July, 1800.”
At the time Mr. Hadfield finished the plans for the treasury
office, it was intended to erect a similar structure for the use
of the other executive departments west of the president’s
house. However, that part of the plan was not carried out,
until the following year, the contract being awarded, July 29,
1799, to Leonard Harbaugh. But when the plans of the two
executive buildings had been completed some disagreement
occurred over them between the commissioners and the archi-
tect, resulting in the discharge, on May 28, 1798, of Mr. Had-
field from the public employ after a service of some three
years.
1 Letter from the secretary of the treasury, accompanying a report
from the commissioners of the city of Washington, exhibiting a view of
the receipts and expenditures from May 18 to Nov. 18, 1798.
2 In an account of the twin department buildings erected twenty
years later and published in the Jntelligencer, Aug. 16, 1819, it is
stated they are larger than the department buildings first erected,
“‘and having the addition each of a handsome portico with free stone
pillars.”’
’ City of Washington Gazette, Feb. 6, 1819. Card signed by George
Hadfield addressed to the editor. He states his discharge was due to
this cause and adds that his plans approved for the public offices ‘‘have
’ A PERIOD OF BUILDING SIS.
As Hadfield subsequently asked the commissioners to inves-
tigate charges against him it is quite evident his conduct of
the business did not give entire satisfaction.!
The newspaper controversy which was carried on between
Mr. Hadfield and Redmond Purcell, a foreman of carpenters
at the capitol for four years, alleging carelessness on Mr.
Hadfield’s part, is mainly interesting at this time because it
contains the earliest charge that the plans of the capitol were
not the work of Thornton. In Purcell’s contribution of April
16, 1799, he states that Thornton “smuggled his name to the
only drawings of sections for the capitol ever delivered at the
commissioners’ office, made out by another man.”’
General Washington, it will be recalled, spoke of the Thorn-
ton design as modified by Hallet, so as to reduce the cost,
“as anybody’s or nobody’s design,”’ which seems to lead to the
conclusion that to Washington’s mind, at that time, at any rate,
the authorship of the design was doubtful. In more recent
years the opinion was held by some writers on the subject that
Dr. Thornton was “an English amateur,’ * that “he was not
an architect.” ®
On this phase of the subject the record of the proceedings of
the commissioners of April, 1799, shows that after Hadfield’s
discharge a request was made to Dr. Thornton by Mr. Hoban,
at that time in charge of the capitol buildings, for drawings
for that structure, while all through the diary of Mrs. Thornton
are references to her husband being engaged in preparing de-
tailed plans of the work to be done at the capitol, as well as
to other architectural work he was engaged in at that time,
been lately duplicated and I never compensated,” alluding to the office
buildings known as the state and war departments erected, about the
period he was writing, on the north line of the president’s house and
flanking it on the east and west.
1 Centinel of Liberty, April 9, 12, and 16, 1799. Cards signed by
Hadfield and Redmond Pureel!, the former addressed to the commis-
sloners.
2 Address of Adolf Cluss before the American Institute of Architects,
Oct. 12, 1877.
The Capitol and Washington. Anaddress. John H. B. Latrobe.
Baltimore, 1881.
316 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
as, for example, making the plans and superintending the build-
ing of the Octagon House at the northeast corner of New
York Avenue and 18th Street, and conferring with Bishop
John Carroll, relative to designing the Catholic cathedral in
Baltimore, although eventually he did not undertake that
commission.!
While Hallet and Hadfield were in charge of the capitol
building, they furnished the detailed drawings in accordance
with Thornton’s elevations and sections as the work progressed,
but during the period of some four or five years, when Hoban
divided his time between that structure and the president’s
house, Dr. Thornton supplied what was needed in the way of
detailed drawings.
The relation of Dr. Thornton as architect to the capitol
building is well brought out in the course of a correspondence
he had with the board of commissioners.? In the first letter
in the series, dated Sept. 28, 1798, he declares to his col-
leagues that he has ‘‘been prevented by motives of delicacy
from requesting your attention to a claim which I have from
my drawings of the capitol of the United States, being
approved by the late President of the United States and the
commissioners, our predecessors, which plan, though deviated
from in some respects, I restored and accommodated to my
original ideas and furnished correspondent elevations and _ sec-
tions for the same, which have thus far been carried into execu-
tion, and as no material change is now contemplated, it is pre-
sumed the whole will be completed upon the plan now adopted.”
He then explains the purpose of the letter, which was that
he be allowed to make a selection of the lot offered as a pre-
mium for the accepted design in addition to the cash prize.
He states he had received the latter. Then in the following
spring (April 16, 1799) James Hoban, who had assumed the
duties performed by Hadfield at the capitol, wrote to the com-
missioners, requesting that he be furnished with drawings for
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10. Mrs. Thornton’s diary covers only the
year 1800.
2 J. Henley Smith Papers.
. A PERIOD OF BUILDING out
certain portions of the structure. The following day the com-
missioners sent a letter to Dr. Thornton, stating that the
original advertisement for plans “requires that the author
furnish the necessary drawings and your letter of the 17th
of November, 1795, admits the principle.” He is requested to
state whether he will furnish the drawings as requested.
In his reply of the same date Dr. Thornton states he is will-
ing to furnish drawings, but as the finishing of the interior is
intended only to be temporary he did not suppose it was neces-
sary. It was made a part of the duties of the late superintend-
ent, he added, to furnish detailed drawings subject to the
approval of the board, and he presumed the board considered
that still a part of his duties.
It is quite evident neither the commissioners nor Dr. Thorn-
ton had any doubt as to who designed the capitol. These
statements were not contradicted at the time and are cor-
roborated by the testimony of a contemporary, who on pro-
fessional grounds at least had no reason for feeling kindly
towards Dr. Thornton, and that is George Hadfield. Some
twenty years after his rupture with the commissioners and
discharge from the public service Mr. Hadfield, who contin-
ued to reside in the city which is adorned with several examples
of his correct and refined taste in architectural designing,
notably the court-house of the city, was credited with being
the author of the design of the capitol. The editor of the
City of Washington Gazette! was responsible for this state-
ment, which was made in the course of an article about a vign-
ette of the capitol used to embellish a column head of that
journal. In the issue of Feb. 6, 1819, appeared Mr. Hadfield’s
correction. He stated that the vignette used by the paper
had been taken from a prospective drawing made by him.
He credits Dr. Thornton, however, with the design, “except
the management of the dome with an attic, which I claim as
my introduction in said drawing, as believing it more consistent
with good architecture, although differing from the engraving
of the capitol in the city plan lately published by Mr. Robert
1 The issue of Feb. 2, 1819.
318 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
King! and acknowledged to be Dr. Thornton’s design of the
capitol.”
A comparison of the two drawings mentioned shows that
or
dn
Mr. Golde
-claiins, made
tions af Piate
d gziceen me tS us a hain and othi(
* : at | . Mr. G. tre:
THUR GAAP Po | apt i
for. the relief:
Dill for the re
mere several,
4 = =6Mr.. Barbar
lation, which
“The vignette of: the: Capitél, which we this’ day réading.
jatrodueg. into the: Gazette, was éngraved: by Dr. Resolved,
Alexander-Anderson, of New-York, from a design
of Mr. George Hadfield, of this city, as, originally presentatives
apptoved of by general Washington. It. may be n: Congress
proper to state, ‘that since the restoration of the ra the: United
Capital, dn alteration (not included tn dur, desigt) | skilfut arlist ty
has’ beqn made, by adding & cupola roof on each deg. S0min..:
wing, nesgex #ver, 2
| line to be run,
Lokth the paid 5
‘The engror
an amendnien
Hire there is'no: National i'n: National Bducitiog, there tan
Seno durable: Legislagon,*
TUESDAY, —— alii
—
SOUT: AUERICAN: RELATIONS.
Justat the closé of Satisday’s sithing, the
President'trarismitted to the House of Repre.
HapFIELD’s DrawiNnG or THORNTON’S Desren.
the latter is a correct representation of the centre or old por-
tion of the building as it exists to-day.
Mr. Hoban was placed in charge of the work at the capitol,
1**OQn Monday next will be published by W. Cooper a new and correct
map of the city of Washington drawn from actual survey by Robert
King, Esq., city surveyor, and engraved by C. Schwarz.’ National Intel-
ligencer, Feb. 27, 1818. This was the second map of the city to be
engraved, following the first after an interval of twenty-six years.
- A PERIOD OF BUILDING 319
and in consideration of the fact that it was in addition to his
duties as superintendent of the president’s house he was granted
extra pay. ‘This arrangement continued while the city affairs
remained under the direction of the commissioners. Using
brick for the department buildings instead of stone was not
the only instance of cutting down expenses furnished in the
administration of city affairs.
Four or five years before, or about the time Hallet was re-
moved as superintendent of the capitol building, the actual
work was confined to the north wing, leaving the foundations
of the centre portion in an unfinished state, in which they
remained until the year 1803. A further tightening of the
financial resources of the commissioners made it necessary in
the year 1799 to stop the work on the president’s house so as to
make the funds on hand go far enough to get ready the capitol
and the department buildings. The commissioners thought
a private house could be secured for the use of the president
until such a time as the building planned for his occupancy
could be finished! “The funds are more than sufficient for
all these objects,” the commissioners inform Washington,
“could the debts be collected. But the impossibility of en-
forcing the payment of these debts in season has induced us for
some time past to suspend the work on the president’s house.”
The rough and arduous road to be followed in the collection
of debts secured on real estate in the city was fully experienced
by the city officials in their attempts to enforce the payment
of the instalments due from Morris and Nicholson, amounting
at that time to over one hundred thousand dollars. The sale
of lots for this purpose proposed in 1797, but postponed by a
partial payment and promise of more from the trustees, was
again attempted in the following year, but at each sale rep-
resentatives of the trustees were present with their cautions
and threats of lawsuits that “the public has been so alarmed
as to defeat the object.” ?
1 Letter from the commissioners to the presiaent, Dee. 5, 1799.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Dec. 4, 1798. Commissioners to
the representatives of Prince George County in the Maryland legis-
320 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The effort to realize on the syndicate obligations to the public
was continued the following season. Sales were held three
times each week for a period of some six weeks, but the net
result was $41,000.!
Sales were held the following spring to recover the balance
due and also the last instalment due in May, 1800. Although
the commissioners had been advised by counsel that they had
ample authority under the law to sell the property of the syndi-
cate, yet it was evident public confidence was shaken, and so the
passage of a law was asked conferring the title on purchasers
in the sales already made of the Morris and Nicholson lots.
This additional legislation was not secured, and while the city
interest in the great purchase was in the course of latter years
finally eliminated, yet for a period stretching down nearly to
the middle of the nineteenth century, the voice of the trustees of
Morris and Greenleaf and their attorney continued to be raised.
to impede the course of settlement, and court dockets were
crowded with cases arising from the syndicate transactions.”
The commissioners in their zeal for the interests of the city
felt called upon when James Greenleaf applied to the Mary-
land legislature for an act of insolvency, having been declared
a bankrupt in Pennsylvania, to call the attention of that body
to his agreement made with them. “Very few,’ they add,
“of the 140 houses contracted by Messrs. Morris and Green-
leaf have yet been erected and they with John Nicholson stand
the only sureties for $80,000, the price of the 1000 lots.” 3
lature. In the records of the Chancery Court of Maryland are the
papers in the suits that were entered against the commissioners by the
Morris and Nicholson interests.
1 Commissioners to the president, Sept. 25, 1799.
* Forty-five years after Morris and Nicholson acquired interests in
Washington city property a report of the permanent committee of
their creditors appeared in the Intelligencer (Aug. 31, 1839), which
stated that Morris and Nicholson ‘‘were engaged in the purchase of
lands, lots, houses, ete., to an extent which has never been equalled
by individuals either in this country or in Europe. They both failed,
owing more than three million each.”’
’ Commissioners’ Letter Book. Commissioners to the president of
the senate and speaker of the house of delegates of Maryland. Oct.
30, 1798.
‘ A PERIOD OF BUILDING 74
The name of Greenleaf was included in a list of other insol-
vents seeking the benefits of the bankruptcy law of Maryland
in a statute enacted by the Maryland legislature in 1798.
The following year he availed himself of the law, and William
Cranch was appointed trustee.| Thomas Law, the largest
individual purchaser from the syndicate, took in exchange for
his money a mortgage on its property. But he was able to
uphold his rights only by a course of litigation lasting fifteen
years, including an appeal to the United States Supreme Court,
as the voluminous papers in the case of Pratt vs. Law attest.
Then followed the suits of the Dutch money lenders, represented
by Peter Godefroy and Gillis Groenveldt. Overton Carr was
appointed trustee in the case of Mr. Law, and David A. Hall
in the Groenveldt suit, and sales of the lots were made by the
trustees. While the complications in the handling of the public
property due to the bankruptey of Morris, Nicholson and
Greenleaf is well brought out in the official papers, the record
as to the fate of the property holders, who also were entangled
in the same mesh, is meagre and unsatisfactory. To what extent
the credit and standing of the three big buyers were accepted
in place of cash by the individual landowners is not known.?
The desperate frame of mind which the largest purchasers
from the syndicate, next to Mr. Law, attained, is shown by the
fact that a meeting actually took place between Mr. Greenleaf
and Captain William Mayne Duncanson for the purpose of
fighting a duel, which, however, ended with the snapping of
a cap in one of the pistols.*
Mr. Duncanson, however, unlike his friend Mr. Law, had
neglected to secure himself in his purchase from Morris and
Greenleaf by a mortgage. and so he found a portion of his
1 Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City, p. 172.
2 One instance will perhaps serve to illustrate the general condition.
The Twenty Buildings erected by Morris and Nicholson on land en-
gaged to be purchased from Daniel Carroll of Duddington and with
bricks furnished from the same source were advertised for sale by Mr.
Carroll, but no purchaser appeared. Centinel of Liberty, Sept. 3, 1799.
3The same, Jan. 15 and 22, 1799. In the issue of Feb. 22 is an
account of a duel fought by General Abram Martin and Captain W.
Powell in the vicinity of Georgetown.
TO oo
gan A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
fortune gone in the general-ruin that overwhelmed the three
chief adventurers. He also met reverses in his commercial
undertaking with James Ray, and by the year 1800 he was
obliged to leave the large house he had built at South Carolina
Avenue and 6th Street, S. E., and occupy a humbler home
near the foot of 13th Street, S. W.
The commissioners encountered the labor problem, but in
what would be looked upon in modern days as a mild form.
This is indicated by a letter written by the commissioners in
the spring of 1798. It was addressed to the stone-cutters
at the capitol and the president’s house. The workmen were
informed the commissioners have no intention of raising their
wages and further that they are expected to quit the public
employment at the end of the current month, “and also all
the buildings you now occupy belonging to the public, as they
will be wanted for other stone-cutters, whom we shall engage.”
This peremptory method seems to have accomplished its pur-
pose, as the stone-cutters withdrew their demand for higher
wages and remained in the public employ. As the men were
without organization, this request had been made by letter
signed by all those employed. A letter of similar purport
was received from the carpenters which met with a prompt
refusal that ended the matter! As the first of the labor move-
ments, this episode is of interest as showing the change in the
relation between employer and employed.?
1 During this period mechanics and laborers worked from 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m. When the south wing was begun the hours were from sun-
rise to sunset, conforming to the general practise. In addition to the
dinner time, which in the summer was two hours and in the fall an hour
and a half, the workmen were allowed time in the morning and the
afternoon for refreshment. Journal of Latrobe, p. 128. Memorial
of the masons and bricklayers employed at the capitol in 1805 asking
a return to the shorter hours which Latrobe refused. There is no
record of the length of time the longer working day was observed.
In the History of the United States Capitol, pp. 100-101, it is stated
that the wages received from 1793 to 1800 were, bricklayers $1.50 to
$1.75; carpenters $1 to $1.50; stone-cutters $1.25 to $1.33; laborers
75 cents. Wages did not vary until after the war of 1812, when they
were about doubled.
2 The names appended to the letter from the stone-cutters were
as follows: at the Capitol, John MceDonaugh, David Watterston, An-
- A PERIOD OF BUILDING 323
As the work on the capitol advanced towards completion
a night watch force was established consisting of two persons.
Samuel N. Smallwood in charge of the laborers at that build-
ing was directed to employ proper persons for that service.
“Tt is expected,” the commissioners inform Mr. Smallwood,
that the two men “will one at a time keep guard during the
whole night and toll the bell at least once every half hour.’ !
It was thought that owing to the exposure of the carpenters
on the roof of the capitol during the heat of summer they
should be allowed a small portion of spirits twice a day. In
consequence half a pint of whiskey was allowed each car-
penter each day during the hot season.”
The laborers, who were mainly negro slaves hired from their
masters, received quite a good deal of attention at the meet-
ings of the commissioners. On one occasion" the overseer was
directed not to serve pork more than four days in each week
until the beef in barrels was used.? While on another occasion
the counsel of Dr. Ceningham was sought, who as he was not
exclusively engaged in the active practice of his profession,
was probably regarded by the commissioners as having the
requisite expert knowledge without prejudice to determine
whether or not a bill of Dr. May’s for $268.50 for half a year for
attendance at the hospital was just. Last year the commis-
sioners inform Dr. Coningham the charge was $1.20 per head
per annum, “about ninety heads being employed at the public
works.’ 4 The close of the career of another medical practi-
drew Lathead, Peter Lorimer, John Hill, Alexander Rea, Samuel God-
frey, Joseph Cochran, William Simpson, James Seller, Abraham Cook,
William Beard, James Donald, George Terry, John Elford, Alexander
Robertson, Robert Miller, Joshua Gallaher, Robert Spedon, David
Oglevie, Andrew Rutherford.
At the president’s house, Alexander Rice, Hugh Somerville, Andrew
Shiels, James White, John Williams, Alexander Wilson, William Bond,
James Rice, James McIntosh. Commissioners’ Letter Book, April 16,
1798.
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, June 27, 1799.
2 The same, Aug. 13, 1798.
3The same, April 5, 1798.
4 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Novy. 22, 1798.
324 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tioner appears to be indicated in an advertisement of Thomas
Law offering for sale the residence of Dr. John Crocker at the
northeast corner of 9th and E streets, N. W., but some under-
standing must have been reached, as the property remained in
the control of Dr. Crocker, but there is no further record of
his professional activity.t
At this period too Dr. James H. Blake, who had been a
resident of Georgetown since 1789, when he entered upon the
practice of his profession announced his intention to remove
from that place.2. He removed to Colchester, Va., and becom-
ing interested in public affairs was elected a member of the
legislature. In the year 1809 he established his residence in
Washington, where he practised his profession.*
Measures were adopted at this period to officially set apart
and determine the ground selected for public uses, as President
Adams in the summer of 1798 affixed his signature to a paper
specifying where and what were the public appropriations, as
they were called. Such a paper had been signed by General
Washington in the spring of 1797 at the close of his administra-
tion, but as the Appropriation Map, as it was termed, prepared
by James R. Dermott, was, through some oversight not attached,
the trustees to whom the proprietors of the land had trans-
ferred their holdings, in accordance with the agreement, refused
1“The earliest physicians in Washington were Drs. Samuel Brown
and John Crocker — the latter had been a surgeon in the revolution-
ary war.’’ Anniversary oration delivered before the Medical Society
of the District of Columbia, J. M. Toner, M.D., Washington, 1869, p. 6.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 19, 1799.
3 History of the Medical Society, p. 213, Washington, 1909, and p.
219, sketches of Drs. Dick and Brown. ‘‘It is probable Dr. Walter
Smith was the first physician who settled in Georgetown and Dr.
John Weems was the second. Dr. Charles A. Beatty settled in George-
town in 1782. Dr. Charles Worthington, a native of Anne Arundel
County, Md., and the first president of the Medical Society, settled
in Georgetown in 1783. Edward Gantt began to practise there prior
to 1800. He was also a minister of the Episcopal Church.’”’ Toner’s
Anniversary Oration. The same authority states that prior to 1800
Drs. James Craik, Elisha Cullen Dick, James Gillies, Gustavus Brown
and William Washington were practising physicians in Alexandria.
Dr. Brown, who was called in at the last illness of General Washington,
is mentioned as living in Port Tobacco, Md.
: A PERIOD OF BUILDING 325
to execute deeds, assigning as a reason that the land thus to
be appropriated was not described. This omission was cor-
rected, and an order similar in terms to the one signed by Gen-
eral Washington was approved by his successor.
The trustees, however, warned by the landholders of being
held responsible for the proper execution of the trust, still de-
clined to sign deeds transferring to the government the prop-
erty appropriated for streets and reservations, justifying such
a course by showing a paper signed by several of the proprie-
tors forbidding the trustees to convey and promising indemnity
in case of refusal. It was alleged by the trustees that the de-
scription of the appropriations did not agree with the plan to
which it referred. On the other hand, the commissioners main-
tained that it agreed with “the utmost precision.” The advice
of the attorney-general was sought by the city authorities,
and they were assured the property was as effectually vested
in the United States, as if it were formally conveyed.’ This
conclusion has never been reversed ; in fact, it has been judi-
cially affirmed.” The formal title of the United States to the
land in the city devoted to streets and reservations has never
been recorded, but by deed of November 30, 1796, the trustees,
Thomas Beall of George, and John M. Gantt of Georgetown,
conveyed to the commissioners of the city all the lands of the
original proprietors “which have been laid off into squares,
parcels or lots for buildings.” *
The land set apart for public uses, and known as reservations,
for which the proprietors received compensation at $66.50
per acre, amounted to 551 acres and two roods.* The reserva-
tions were seventeen in number, of which three having origi-
nally 339 acres comprised the grounds of the President’s Square,
(including Lafayette Square) and of the capitol and of the
Mall to the Potomac River, the same area as exists to-day
1Commissioners to Committee of the House, March 23, 1802.
American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 333.
2 Van Ness vs. Mayor of Washington. U.S. 4 Pet., 232.
3 Liber B. F., 588-616, Land Records of the District of Columbia.
4 Proceedings of Commissioners, Nov. 28, 1798. Report of Robert
King, surveyor of the city.
326 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
except the additions made to the Mall by the reclamation of
the Potomac Flats and the two squares between Missouri
Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, and 3d and 6th streets,
and the two squares between Maine Avenue and Maryland
Avenue, and 3d and 6th streets. These four squares were sold
in accordance with an act of congress of May 7, 1822.
By the provisions of the same act three reservations of one
square each, and containing eleven acres on the north side of
Pennsylvania Avenue between 2d and 43 streets and C and
B streets, N. W., known in the early days as the Bank
and Exchange Squares, were sold. The other reservations —
fractions of acres being omitted — were the Naval Medical
School Hospital property between 23d and 25th, E Street and
Potomac Park, containing nineteen acres; the War College
grounds twenty-eight acres; the West Market Square, between
20th and 21st streets, B Street and the Potomac River, now a
part of Potomac Park; the Centre Market Square, two acres
between 7th and 9th, Pennsylvania Avenue and B streets still
used for that purpose; the National Church Square, four acres
between 7th and 9th, F and G streets, N. W., occupied by the
Patent Office building ; Judiciary Square, between Indiana and
Louisiana avenues, G, 4th and 5th streets, N. W., nineteen
acres; the Hospital Square, between B and G and 19th streets,
and the Eastern Branch, seventy-seven acres, now for many
years occupied by the city jail; the Navy Yard, M, 9th, 7th
streets and the Eastern Branch, twelve acres, but since en-
larged; the Eastern Branch Market and grounds (two reser-
vations) two acres between K, L, 5th and 7th streets, S. E.,
now unoccupied, but still in public ownership; the Town
House Square, twenty-three acres, now known as Garfield
Park, South Capitol, 3d, E and H streets, S. E.
The commissioners proceeded to give notice to the owners
of the land of their intention to take possession, warning them
that all trees “not marked for public use,” and not removed,
would be considered public property at the end of six months
and directing that enclosures be removed. Mr. Davidson,
who owned a portion of the President’s Square, including in that
: A PERIOD OF BUILDING 327
designation what is now known as Lafayette Square, presented
to the United States the trees standing on his property. Mr.
Carroll was still raising crops on the Mall, and Mrs. David
Burnes, whose husband had died! a few months previously,
was advised that as the public must have possession of the
appropriations, not to plant a crop that year. Daniel Carroll
was given permission to plant crops subject to the possibility
of the commissioners planting trees, which, however, with
a recollection of the state of their finances, they add, is not
likely.
It was in the summer of 1799 that the commissioners, in spite
of the objections of Dr. Thornton, who was an upholder of the
policy of executing the plan of the city and erecting the public
buildings on broad, generous lines decided to divide with the
property holders the triangular pieces of land formed by the
cutting of the transverse avenues across the rectangular sys-
tem of streets. In some cases these sections of land were only
large enough for one building lot, and in other cases there
were two or more. Prior to this time the commissioners had
made a division of land of this character bordering on
Kentucky Avenue. The owner, George Walker, declined to
consider them as public appropriations and therefore sub-
ject to be paid for at the acreage price, as he claimed
he had a market for them ona per foot basis.2, The ques-
tion arose at this time on the application of Samuel Blod-
gett, for a division of the square bounded by P, 18th, Mas-
sachusetts Avenue and Dupont Circle and the square
bounded by New Hampshire Avenue, 18th and R streets,
N. W. As Dr. Thornton wisely pointed out in the Walker
case, these small fractions of land “if occupied by indi-
viduals might justly be considered as nuisances, yet if ap-
1“ Died. In the city of Washington on Tuesday last (May 7), Mr.
David Burnes, a very considerable proprietor of lots.’’ Centinel of
Liberty, May 10, 1799. This was the scant notice of a man whose
name is mentioned in connection with the early history of the federal
city more frequently than perhaps any other of the original proprietors,
and whose daughter became known as the Heiress of Washington.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Aug. 16, 1799.
328 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
propriated to public use, they would not only be highly use-
ful, but also ornamental, as they would serve for churches,
temples, infirmaries, public academies, dispensaries, markets,
public walks, fountains, statues, obelisks, ete.” ? Dr. Thorn-
ton submitted the case to General Washington, who in his
reply reiterated his well-known policy since his retirement
from public life “not to intermeddle in any public matter
which did not immediately concern me.’’ He, however, added
that he considered the purchaser of property on an open space
would have just cause for complaint if “an angle thereof should
afterwards be filled up ina manner” he might not approve.”
However, Dr. Thornton was overruled and these triangular
spaces were disposed of, although there were some that fell to
the public in the division of the property, and in this way they
were saved for the future adornment of the city.
A project of city advancement that met the hearty approval
of General Washington, and was fostered by the commissioners,
was to bring about the erection of houses by foreign govern-
ments for the use of their representatives in this country, sites
to be donated in Washington for that purpose. What seemed
a promising beginning was made in the summer of 1798, when
the Minister from Portugal, Cipriano R. Freire, visited the
city and selected a building site on the President’s Square
fronting on the east side of 17th Street, directly south of where
the state war and navy department building now stands, a
situation thought by Washington to be desirable for such a
purpose. President Adams in this particular, as well as in all
others relating to the affairs of the city, fell in line with the policy
of his predecessor and signed a deed conveying the site to the
queen of Portugal. But when the attorney-general heard of
the transaction, he gave it as his opinion that congress alone
was competent to grant away the public property.’
The minister from Spain, Carlos M. De Irujo, also expressed
1 Dr. Thornton to General Washington, May 31, 1799. American
State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 335.
2 The same.
? Commissioners’ Letter Book, May 23, 1798. American State
Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 334.
- A PERIOD OF BUILDING 329
his willingness to accept on behalf of his government such a
grant,’ but the lack of power on the part of the president to
act resulted not only in the withdrawal of the proposed grant
to the queen of Portugal, but the abandonment of the entire
project.
As the time of preparation drew to a close the commissioners
found that more money was needed, and as all the public lots
were subject to existing loans from the United States and Mary-
land, a plan was devised of making available for such a purpose
the lots remaining of the Morris and Nicholson contract not
paid for or conveyed to them.? There were 1210 of such
lots, and at the value fixed upon in the agreement they were
worth nearly $100,000. The members of the Maryland legis-
lature, to whom application was made in December, 1799, for a
loan of $50,000 based upon this security, however, did not
accept the valuation. In agreeing to make the loan,
as was done by the Maryland act of Dec. 23, 1799, it
was stipulated not only that the commissioners should give
surety for the payment, both in their official and personal capac-
ities, but additional security was demanded. This was fur-
nished by Uriah Forrest and James M. Lingan giving a bond
to the state of Maryland. Mr. Forrest also gave the state a
mortgage on 420 acres of land.’
The financial situation had a new complication at this time,
due to the refusal of the Bank of Columbia to continue to dis-
count the city paper. The reasons for a change of policy upon
which the bank had been founded have not been preserved,
but it aroused the strong resentment of the commissioners, who
discussed the removal of the city account to the Bank of Alexan-
dria.4| The difficulty was apparently adjusted. Asa change had
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Nov. 21, 1798.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book. Commissioners to John Adams,
Sept. 25, 1799. Also to Uriah Forrest, Dec. 9, 1799.
3 The loan as on previous occasions was United States 6 per cent
stock, and from its sale the commissioners realized $42,738. Report of
Commissioners, Jan. 28, 1801. American State Papers, Miscellaneous,
Voli 1,p220.
4 Proceedings of Commissioners, May 20, 1799.
330 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
taken place a year before in the presidency of the bank, at which
time Benjamin Stoddert, who had been at the head of the in-
stitution nearly the whole of its five years’ career, resigned, it is
probable the friction with the city authorities was due to that
circumstance. At that time Mr. Stoddert had just been ap-
pointed by President Adams, secretary of the navy, the first
to fill that position. He was succeeded as head of the bank by
John Mason, a member of the firm of Fenwick, Mason and Com-
pany, merchants, Joseph Fenwick in charge of the business at
Bordeaux, France, and Mr. Mason managing the Georgetown
house.! .
It was the first report of Mr. Stoddert to congress as head of
the newly organized department of the navy that was influential
in securing an appropriation on Feb. 25, 1799, of a million
dollars to build six ships of war. A portion of this money was
used in purchasing ground for six navy yards, the Norfolk
and the Washington yards being among the number.”
A place for a navy yard had been provided for in the first
plan of the city and had been set apart by the commissioners
with the other public reservations. It was a tract of land con-
taining twelve acres bounded by 7th, 9th and M streets and the
Eastern Branch, but this area was evidently not looked upon
as sufficient for the purpose, and Mr. Stoddert asked the com-
missioners to arrange to procure additional ground. This
was accomplished by Daniel Carroll and Mr. Prout agreeing
to take in exchange lots in other squares for the lots held by
them in the two squares adjoining and comprising the entire
area on the west of the navy yard site, and bounded by 6th
and 7th and M streets and the Eastern Branch.’
For the two squares thus acquired the commissioners re-
ceived from the United States the sum of $4000, which was
probably the figure at which the land was held — the current
1 Centinel of Liberty, June 3, 1800, announcing the dissolution of the
partnership.
2 Navy Yard, Washington, history from the organization. Henry
B. Hibben, 51st Cong., ist Sess., Senate Ex. Does., No. 22.
> Commissioners’ Letter Book. Commissioners to Benjamin Stod-
dert, Dee. 3, 1799.
P A PERIOD OF BUILDING 331
market price —so that the transaction furnishes additional
evidence of the theory of that period of the entire separation
of the city affairs from those of the general government.!
It is interesting to note that Mr. Carroll in writing to the
commissioners in relation to the proposed exchange of property
states that the navy yard site was originally intended for the
exchange of the city.2, A provision of land of such large area
as a place for the daily meetings of merchants and shippers
gives some notion of what was then thought of the future com-
mercial importance of the city. In less than four months after
the appropriation for building ships had been made William
Marbury of Annapolis, Md., who had been appointed naval
agent, began to advertise “for ship timber for a 74-gun ship
to be built at the Navy Yard, Washington.” By October of
1799 a wharf was being built, and in January following Captain
Thomas Tingey, “an officer of great merit in our Navy,” was
ordered to Washington “with a view to superintend the build-
ing of the 74-gun ship and to aid in the arrangement of the navy
yard, the improvements of which he will also superintend.”’ 4
The development of the navy yard at first was slow.6 By
the fall of 1801 the exvenditures at the Washington navy yard
were largely in excess of that at the other yards, namely, New
York, Philadelphia, Boston, Portsmouth and Norfolk, so that
several of the buildings were erected by that date. The pol-
icy of the Jefferson administration that came in on March 4,
1801, was opposed to a permanent navy and the Washington
yard felt this influence.
1 As the first purchase of land by the United States in the federal
city, this transaction is of interest, but it has a further claim to atten-
tion because of what seems a curious distinction, as the two squares
after the exchange with the individual owners had been made were as
much publie property as the original area of the navy yard.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Sept. 18, 1799.
3 Centinel of Liberty, June 18, 1799.
4 Secretary of Navy Stoddert to William Marbury, Jan. 22, 1800.
Navy Yard, Washington, p. 25.
5 “We then went to the navy yard. Much surprised to see so
little done. Only six men at work.’’ April 28, 1800. Mrs. Thorn-
ton’s diary. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10.
302 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The necessity for naval defence had been impressed upon the
public mind by the damage inflicted upon American commerce
by the French vessels, and as a result came the million-dollar
appropriation early in 1799 for war ships and navy yards.
Some five years before, however, congress began to provide
coast defences in the way of fortifications at exposed places,
and especially at the approaches to the important centres.
The new capital city must have ranked in that class, although
at that time hardly three years had elapsed since the surveyors
had determined the boundary lines of the city and the District.
However Alexandria was selected as one of the places where
fortifications were to be provided, and on Jones Point south of
that city and commanding a wide sweep of the river “a bar-
bette of twelve pieces of heavy cannon” was erected in the
summer of 1794.1 It was directed the parapets should be of
earth or faced with strong timber and filled in with earth.
Some $3000 was expended, and then in a couple of years the
works were abandoned.
An armory had been established at Springfield, Mass., in
the year 1793, while five years later a similar plant was started
at Harper’s Ferry. This latter location was convenient to the
Antietam Iron Works operated by Samuel Hughes and others
near Hagerstown, where many of the cannon used during the
struggle with Great Britain had been made. The making of
cannon for the government by the same contractors was still
going on, but apparently at their plant in Cecil County in the
northeastern part of Maryland.? A year later, however, a
contract was made by the government with Henry Foxall and
Robert Morris, Jr., operating the Eagle Iron Works in Philadel-
phia to furnish cannon. This was not the first engagement of
the sort entered into by these men, but the new factor was the
decision reached by the senior partner to establish a furnace
near the federal city and make there the cannon he had agreed
1 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, pp. 93 and 110.
2 Report of Secretary of War in regard to contract with Samuel
Hughes and others. American State Papers, Vol. 1, p. 123, April 12,
1798.
- A PERIOD OF BUILDING 333
to supply the government by a contract dated Sept. 11, 1799,
and subsequent dates. The initial step in the execution of this
purpose was the purchase by Henry Foxall by deed of Dec. 4,
1800, of a tract of land owned by Francis Deakins on the Potomac
River about one mile north of Georgetown. Here Mr. Foxhall
erected the buildings of the Columbian Foundry, and here for a
period of some fifteen years he engaged largely in the manu-
facture of ordnance for the government. This event occurring
in the same year as that of the removal of the government to
the new city must have been looked upon as confirming the
expectations of those who believed that population and busi-
ness as well as property values would be given a great impetus
as soon as the removal was accomplished.!
For six years the second lottery enterprise of Blodgett had
been making spasmodic efforts to reach an end, and over two
years after the notice of the last drawing, came announce-
ments in the Centinel of Liberty extending over a week, giving
lists of prizes in the drawings. There is a suggestion of some
difficulty experienced in meeting the requirements of the prize
tickets in an advertisement of this period signed by Blodgett.”
He offered for sale 150 lots in the city of Washington, and
he explains “as many of the above lots form a part of the
securities pledged for the payment of prizes in lottery No. 2
and are to be sold in consequence of the losses incident to the
extreme credits given to further the sales of the tickets, prizes
in the said lottery will be received as cash in payment for all
or any part of the purchase money.”
While all the city property owned by Blodgett was subject
to the payment of the first prize in the first lottery, yet in the
confident belief that the equity was more than ample to meet
that demand, he proposed this scheme as well as another one
later on to utilize what he maintained were genuine property
rights.
1The Old Cannon foundry above Georgetown. Madison Davis.
Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10. Mr. Foxhall was an Englishman. His
Washington enterprise was not shared in by Mr. Morris. The latter
is thought to have been a son of Robert Morris.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Aug. 16, 1799.
334 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The latest reference to a drawing of lottery No. 2 is an an-
nouncement of prizes and blanks in the Centinel of Liberty,
June 3, 1800, the drawing having been held May 26. The sit-
uation of this enterprise is fully set forth in a statement signed
by Dr. William Thornton more than a year later.’ He justifies
the acceptance by the Washington association and United
States Insurance Co., one of Blodgett’s projects of city lots
owned by Blodgett in exchange for the stock of the company.
The criticism made that this property is twice mortgaged, he
explains, is not properly founded. “It is so nominally,” he
adds, “for the first lottery has long been paid and only one
claim now in dispute is made for which ample security is given.”
As has already been stated in the narrative, when a few years
later an attempt was made to satisfy this claim, the entire
property interests of Blodgett in the city were swallowed up.
Dr. Thornton then takes up the status of lottery No. 2. “Of
these tickets of the second lottery,” he explains, “one-fourth
only were sold, and they are so nearly redeemed by payment of
the prizes and recalling the undrawn tickets that few remain to
be cancelled.”
The community, however, had its amusements, even though
it was engaged in laying the foundations of the nation’s capital.
In November, 1798, the citizens of Alexandria and theneighboring
places were notified that the new theatre building “designed by
Captain Stephenson, architect of Washington city,” was open.?
In Georgetown Messrs. Hamelton and Co. the following spring
announced the opening of “the theatre in Mrs. Suter’s ball
room in Union Tavern,” * while a few months later “ Messrs.
Darby and Barnard from the Philadelphia theatre” informed
the public that they appear “at Mr. Pollock’s six buildings,
City of Washington for one night only.”’* As the first theatrical
performance in the city of Washington, this event is of interest.
It was also given in the month of August, which for the most part
1 Centinel of Liberty, Sept. 7, 1801.
2 Alexandria Times and Advertiser, May 17, 1798.
3 Centinel of Liberty, March 15, 1799.
4The same, Aug. 6, 1799.
A PERIOD OF BUILDING 335
-
has, since that period, been the closed season for the theatrical
world in this city. However, the program was not a heavy one,
as it comprised “a dramatic olio, consisting of songs, jests and
sentiments in three parts.”
But the promoters of this enterprise were evidently only an
advance of their company that played in Philadelphia during the
winter and spring season and at its close came south to try its
fortunes in communities where the chance to see a play at home
was not frequent. Ten days later a notice signed by Wignell
and Reinagle appeared “that a new theatre at Suter’s Tavern
will be opened in the course of the next week by the Philadelphia
Co.” ! The new capital was becoming a centre of some im-
portance as indicated by the establishment of rival stage lines
between Baltimore and Georgetown. The competition for the
patronage of the public resulted in a sharp cutting of rates,
starting at the then low level of $2 for the trip, then reduced
to $1.50 and then to $1?
Anotber feature of community life was the provision made
for burial grounds. “In consequence” the commissioners
state in a newspaper advertisement * “of the numerous objec-
tions which have been made against burial grounds in other
cities, the commissioners of the City of Washington have laid
out two squares on the border of the city; namely, Square 109
(19th, 20th and S streets and Florida Avenue, N. W.) and
Square 1026 (13th, 14th, H and I streets, N. E.) and have
directed a portion of each to be enclosed for public burial
grounds for the use of all denominations of people.”
Previous to this time the cemetery of Rock Creek Church
was the only place of the sort in the vicinity, and the editor of
the Gazette, with his customary freedom of speech, had protested
against a situation where it was imperative to pay for a burial
lot.
There had been an increase in the number of schools, as in
1 Centinel of Liberty, Aug. 16, 1799.
2 The same, Oct. 25,1799. John Harriott in May, 1796, paid $4 on
the stage from Baltimore to Georgetown. Struggles through Life,
Vol. 2, p. 253. London, 1807.
3 Washington Gazette, March 3, 1798.
336 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
addition to the Columbian.or Georgetown Academy, under the
direction of Rev. Mr. Balch, there was the Bladensburg Academy,
and besides Richard Dinmore had opened a boarding school
and Mrs. Phillips, “late from England,” gave notice of her pur-
pose to open a young ladies’ school “ above Mr. Dalton’s, near
Lear’s Wharf.” !
The first bookseller of which there is a record was John Marsh,
whose store was on M Street next to the Union Tavern.?
The development of the city and its vicinity during the four
years preceding the close of the century finds illustration on the
statute books both of Virginia and Maryland, but more espe-
cially with the latter as the new city came within its jurisdiction.
It was during this period that the rather restricted powers con-
ferred on the corporation of Georgetown were enlarged so as
to give more extended police powers, a familiar instance of one
of the signs of increased population. Then too, the revenues
of the town were aided by allowing a portion of the tax on the
retail liquor business to remain with the town instead of being
collected in full for the benefit of the treasury of Montgomery
Gof
Then too, the facilities of communication with the new centre
were authorized to be added to by the charter granted by the
Maryland assembly, Jan. 20, 1797, to enable Benjamin Stoddert,
Thomas Law and John Templeman to form a company with
a capital of $20,000, to be known as the Anacostia Bridge Co.
for the purpose of erecting a bridge with draw over such por-
tion of the Eastern Branch as the company “may judge most
convenient and beneficial to the public.” A little over a year
before the legislature had granted a charter for a company to
erect a bridge over the Eastern Branch at the foot of Kentucky
Avenue, but these powers had not been exercised. Eventually
the latter, known as the Lower Bridge, and the former, called
1 Alexandria Times and Advertiser, May 28, 1798. Centinel of
Liberty, March 8, 1799.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Dec. 24, 1799.
3 Maryland laws, Jan. 20, 1796, Nov. 17, 1797, and Virginia laws.
Dec. 12 and 13, 1796. Laws of the District of Columbia. W. A,
Davis, Washington, 1831.
- A PERIOD OF BUILDING 337
the Upper Bridge, and located north of the foot of East Capitol
Street, were built, but some years were yet to elapse before
the projectors found sufficient encouragement to proceed with
these undertakings.
In January, 1798, the legislature of each state enacted a law
authorizing the formation of an insurance company in Alexan-
dria and one in Georgetown. The latter, named the George-
town Mutual Insurance Co., was limited to taking risks on
houses, goods and furniture, while the Marine Insurance Co.
of Alexandria, as its name indicates, was more especially de-
signed for the protection against loss by those who had
property in vessels or in cargoes.
The incorporators of the Georgetown Co. were John Mason,
Francis Deakins, James M. Lingan, Thomas Beall of George,
Marsham Waring, James Dunlop and Uriah Forrest, while
those named in the Virginia act were William Hartshorne,
John Gill, George Taylor, Richard Conway, Robert T. Hooe,
Jonah Thompson and James B. Nicholls.
VOL. I-—-2%
CHAPTER XIII
THE REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT TO THE NEW
CILY:
Tue death of General Washington, occurring within a few
months of the last event of a series stretching over a period of
nine years, and resulting in the creation of what has proved to
be a permanent seat of government of the United States, must
have had to those nearest to him in this enterprise an additional
pathos. No doubt the thought occurred to many minds when
the announcement was made in the middle of December, 1799,
of Washington’s death that if his life could have been spared
a little longer and he could have seen the national government
actually established at the new centre, that it would have been
a source of great satisfaction. While he had been a private
citizen for more than two years prior to his death and his
official connection with the new city ceased at that time, yet,
as has been seen, a deference to his views and to the soundness
of his judgment led his successor to continue his policy as to
the new city.
He had lived long enough, however, to see much of the op-
position die out, and he realized the change that had taken
place, when the application to congress in 1796 and again in
1798 for a guarantee loan for the city was granted with but
few votes arrayed against it. This favorable condition can
no doubt be attributed in part at least to the general esteem in
which the first president was held as well as to the skill and
judgment shown in the direction of an undertaking so beset
with difficulties and so novel in its character, for never before
had an attempt been made to create at legislative command a
capital city of a country.
Among other marks of respect to the memory of the first
president, congress at this time recommended that the people
338
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 339
. throughout the country observe the 22d of February as a
memorial day, and that they assemble and pay suitable tribute
to the memory of the first president. In accordance with this
recommendation a meeting of citizens of Washington was held
at the Little Hotel to make arrangements, and a committee
was appointed which united with a similar committee represent-
ing the Georgetown citizens in a program for a service which
was held at the Presbyterian Church, the pastor Rev. Dr. Balch
delivering the sermon.!
“A meeting was held at the Catholic chapel in Georgetown,
where one of the students of Georgetown College delivered an
oration, and a poem was recited by another student.” ”
In the city, as Washington was then locally spoken of, Federal
Lodge of Masons No. 15 met at Tunnicliff’s Hotel and then
marched to Christ Church on New Jersey Avenue, where the
rector, Rev. Mr. McCormick, delivered a discourse.*
A little more than a week before the death of General Wash-
ington, the attitude of Congress towards the new centre was
again tested when at the opening of the sixth congress, Presi-
dent Adams, in the course of his message, called attention to the
clause in the law of 1790 which directed that the sessions of
that body should begin in the new city on the first Monday
of December, 1800, and then added that the commissioners of
the city report that the removal at that time of the seat of
government to the new location will be practicable and the
accommodations satisfactory.*
The house, in its reply to this portion of the message, stated
“no obstacle, it is presumed, will exist to a compliance with
the law.”’ The further legislative course was in harmony
with this disposition to carry out the provisions of the residence
1 Diary of Mrs. Thornton, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10, pp. 105 and 110.
2 The same, p. 110.
® Centinel of Liberty, Feb. 18, 1800. The notice to the members of
the lodge was signed by Benjamin More, secretary. The identity of
the name with that of editor of the Washington Gazette at once suggests
itself.
4 Annals of Congress, Dec. 3, 1799, p. 188. Message of the Presi-
dent.
340 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
bill. It was not until the latter part of the following March
that the subject was again taken up, and in the course of a
couple of weeks the house had agreed upon a bill and sent
it to the senate, and a week later the measure had been dis-
posed of, and on the 22d of April, 1800, about a month later,
was enacted intoalaw. The bill created but slight discussion,
and that was confined to minor details.
It authorized the president to direct the various offices to be
removed to Washington at any time after the close of that
session, thus anticipating the time appointed for such removal
by the law of 1790.
A sum not exceeding $15,000 was appropriated for providing
furniture for the president’s house; a sum not exceeding $9000
for furniture for the capitol and for the removal of the records
and papers of the two houses; a sum not exceeding $10,000 for
making footways “for the greater convenience of the members
of both houses” and for “the facility of communication be-
tween the various departments.’ An appropriation not ex-
ceeding $5000 was made for the purchase of books for the use
of congress and for fitting up a suitable apartment for contain-
ing them.
It will be noted the provision for footways is so worded as
to make it clear that the expenditure was for public uses and for
the convenience and facility of the government officers, and the
inference is that no local or municipal purpose was to be sub-
served. The possible resources of the city itself, however,
were to be utilized in making this improvement, and it was
directed that the public lots available be made chargeable for
the reimbursement of the money thus expended.
There is no question that in the minds of the framers of this
law, as was the case with those who wrote the loan guarantee
law, the city of Washington was not in the class of objects
chargeable on the public funds. This distinction between
financial and political relations of the general government and
the federal district, thus made at the very outset, continued
to be insisted upon for many years in congress and with no
indications of disapproval by the people of the country.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 341
While the bill providing for the removal was still before the
house, an amendment was proposed and adopted allowing a
quarter additional salary to each clerk in the various executive
offices to cover the expense of removal. But this amendment
was struck out by the senate because of the understanding
that a special provision for the clerks was unnecessary, as the
law of 1790 authorized the allowance of all necessary expenses,
both to clerks and officers.
At this time some thought was directed to the exercise by
congress of its powers of exclusive legislation within the Dis-
trict of Columbia vested in that body by the constitution. A
resolution of Henry Lee of Virginia was adopted by the house
without discussion, providing for the appointment of a com-
mittee to draw up rules and regulations respecting the Dis-
trict of Columbia.”
A committee of five was appointed, but there is no record of
a report having been made, and no further reference is found to
the subject until the following fall, when congress convened in
the District. On May 13, 1800, the day before congress ad-
journed, a resolution was adopted directing that the next session
be held in Washington, beginning the third Monday in Novem-
ber, 1800.
President Adams acted with promptness, and on May 15,
the day after congress adjourned, issued an order requesting
the heads of departments “to make the most prudent and
economical arrangements for the removal of the public offices,
clerks and papers according to their own best judgment as soon
as may be convenient in such manner that the public offices
may be opened in the city of Washington for the despatch of
business by the 15th of June.’ 3
“The avowed motive for passing the act of April, 1800, for
expediting the removal of the offices,’ declared Mr. Wolcott,
the secretary of the treasury, “was, that it would stimulate the
1 An Address to the People of the United States, ete. Oliver Wolcott,
p. 19, Hartford, 1802.
2 Annals of Congress, p. 669, April 16, 1800.
3 Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, p.
362, Vol. 2. George Gibbs.
342 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
exertions of the citizens to-make better provision for the ac-
commodation of Congress, than could otherwise be expected.
Some reliance was placed on the exertions of the executive
officers, and I trust that experience proved it was well
founded.” 4
The commissioners of the city evidently the first of the year
felt assured that the removal would take place early in the
summer and shared in the general expectation of the beneficial
influence of that event upon the local real estate market.?
The indications of the coming change were not merely in the
minds of those with whom the wish was father to the thought.
Mrs. Thornton records in her diary, Feb. 16, 1800, “Mr. Law
called, showed us a letter written by a member of Congress to
Mr. White to know if he could procure lodgings in one house
for the vice-president (Mr. Jefferson) and nine members of
Congress. Mr. Law has offered one, which is not yet begun.”
In the same record under date of April 18, four days before
the removal bill became a law and a month before the executive
order fixing the date of removal was issued, it is recorded that
Mr. Meredith, presumably the treasurer of the United States,
and Mr. Caldwell had arrived in the city for the purpose of
renting buildings for the war and navy departments. On
May 24th, according to the same authority, Mr. Claxton, the
doorkeeper of the house, reached the city to ascertain the kind
and quantity of furniture needed for the capitol.
No doubt there were other visitors on a similar errand during
the spring of 1800. The exertions of those interested in the city
were also stimulated by the inducements presented by the more
established facilities of Georgetown, where as Mrs. Thornton
records, “a great deal” was heard “of the impossibility of ac-
commodating Congress in the vicinity of the Capitol. But
they speak as they wish, we hope differently.” *
An effort was made in the spring of 1800 to supply the de-
1 An Address to the People of the United States, p. 19.
2 Commissioners to the council of Maryland, Feb. 15, 1800. Letter
Book.
3 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10, p. 93.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 343
ficiency in buildings in the neighborhood of the capitol by erect-
ing additional houses. It was in March that Daniel Carroll
procured from Dr. Thornton plans for two houses which he
and his brother erected on the east side of Delaware Avenue
between B and C streets, N. E., and which remained standing
until the year 1904, when the ground was cleared for the erection
of the office building of the senate. A short distance to the
south and west on North Capitol Street, the two houses in course
of erection by General Washington were nearly completed,
while on the south side of the capitol and at the northwest
corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street was a large house
just finished by Thomas Law for his own use, and which he
took possession of in February, 1800.1
At that time another large house at the northeast corner of
New Jersey Avenue and C Street, S. E., built by Mr. Law, was
nearly completed.”
Farther to the south on New Jersey Avenue a number of
houses had been erected, while in the two squares between Ist
and 2d streets, on each side of East Capitol Street, seven brick
houses and four frame houses had been built by the 15th of
May, 1800.
Perhaps the most noted name among the early tavern keepers
was that of Pontius D. Stelle. He was a resident of Trenton,
N.J., and was the first treasurer of that town.‘
i Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10, p. 108. Owing
to the grade of the lot, Mr. Law’s house was three stories in height at
the street front and five stories in the rear, and from a plan prepared by
Dr. Thornton the stable was built on the rear end of the lot and the whole
yard covered over to the height of one story, the gravelled roof forming
a terrace from the kitchen to the end of the lot.
2The same, p. 107. In an advertisement in the Intelligencer,
Oct. 31, 1800, Robert W. Peacock informs the public that he has taken
two houses in Square 690, New Jersey Avenue, opposite the house at
present occupied by Thomas Law. The houses, he adds, were finished
last spring. The corner house was torn down in the year 1905 when the
square was cleared and the house office building erected.
’ Enumeration by squares of houses in Washington. American State
Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 256.
4 The life and times of Pontius D. Stelle. Maud B. Morris. Coll.
Hist. Soc., Vol. 7.
344 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
About the year 1800 he came to Washington, and began there
a career as tavern keeper which lasted some twelve years. It
is presumed the location of the first hotel under his management
was on New Jersey Avenue, south of the capitol, and while he
occupied several different buildings, he did not leave the vicinity
of the capitol. He was at the beginning the only rival of Wil-
liam Tunnicliff for the patronage that was to be found in that
locality.
The sectional spirit in the eastern and western portions of
the city may be traced in the dancing assemblies or balls that
were given during the winter both at the Little Hotel and at
Tunnicliff’s. Mrs. Thornton records in her diary that at one
of these gatherings at the latter place, thirty ladies were pres-
ent. The usual birthnight ball was of course omitted, as
congress had appointed that day for the services in memory of
General Washington. The second ball was arranged to be
held at Tunnicliff’s on Feb. 17, which Mrs. Thornton disap-
proved of because it was “so near the day appointed for a day
of mourning.” !
The erection of a building that came into use as a rival
tavern to the Little Hotel on F Street, was begun by William
Lovell in June, 1800, in the square to the south. It was lo-
cated on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th
and 15th streets, and adjoining the alley on the west.”
The place was known as the Union Tavern and Washington
Hotel, and also as Lovell’s Tavern. A near-by hostelry came
into existence about this time, as Lewis Morin of Baltimore
in May, 1800, bought from the commissioners a lot at the south-
west corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12th Street, where he
erected a two-story frame house. A contract was made by
the commissioners for the erection of a stable on the southeast
corner of 14th and G streets, N. W., for the use of the president.
A protest was made by Mr. White on the ground that a building
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10, p. 106.
2 The site is now occupied by the buildings 1417 and 1423 Penn-
sylvania Avenue which were erected in the spring of 1902 and of
1913.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 345
for such a purpose would be objectionable to the residents
and injurious to property. A more convenient location, he
thought, would be on the President’s Square. However, the
building was erected, but evidently then intended as a tem-
porary measure until funds became available to put up a
more suitable structure on the President’s Square.!
The greatest number of buildings between the capitol and
the president’s house were to be found on F Street between 13th
and 15th streets, while three squares to the east of 13th Street,
were two of the three church buildings of the city. On this street
also was the home of Dr. Thornton, while on the lot adjoining
his house on the west John Templeman, the Georgetown mer-
chant, began the erection of a house so as to have it ready by the
time congress met in the city. On the north side of F Street,
between 13th and 14th streets, the city post-office had been lo-
cated since Jan. 30, 1799. At that time Lund Washington, Jr.,
was found to be short in his accounts, due to intemperate habits,
and had been dismissed. In his place, Thomas Munroe, the
clerk of the commissioners, had been appointed. His first
official act was to remove the office to that locality from Square
728, East Capitol and Ist streets, which elicited a vigorous
protest from Daniel Carroll and other residents of the eastern
section. The postmaster-general, to whom they appealed, was
of the opinion that the location chosen by Mr. Munroe was
as central as could be found, as “in the present scattered
population of the city no spot can be fixed on which would
not be extremely remote from and inconvenient to a few other
inhabitants.” * Mr. Habersham added that he had taken
some pains to be informed on the subject and was of the opinion
that “Blodgett’s Hotel would be the most central spot for the
office as respects the present population. I cannot, therefore,
think that Square No. 253 is an inconvenient situation.”
The duties of postmaster did not prevent Mr. Munroe from
1 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 10, p. 155.
2 The same, Jan. 11, 1800, p. 93. Now knuwn as 1333-35 F Street.
3 J. Habersham to Daniel Carroll and others, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6,
p. 159.
346 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
continuing his service with the commissioners, nor two years
later, when the board of commissioners was abolished and the
office of superintendent of the city was created, of holding that
position, which he continued to do for a period of seventeen
years. He held the office of city postmaster from Jan. 30, 1799,
to April 29, 1829.
The best house of that day in the city was begun in the fall
of 1799, for Jan. 7, 1800, Mrs. Thornton notes, “After dinner we
walked to take a look at Mr. Tayloe’s house, which begins to
make a handsome appearance.” This was the Octagon House
at the northeast corner of New York Avenue and 18th Street,
which is still standing. It was built by John Tayloe, a large
planter living at Mount Airy, Va., and the owner of a celebrated
stable of horses.
The house was designed by Dr. Thornton, and is a much
admired example of the domestic architecture of the period.
Dr. Thornton owned a lot on the opposite side of New York
Avenue, and he went so far as to make a plan for a house which
was not built, owing, no doubt, to the lack of funds, which was
a common experience in the life of a man who moved in a large
orbit but one not within the range of either the making or the
saving of money. Dr. Thornton too had his farm and his racing
stud. As Mrs. Thornton notes: “Feb. 16, 1800. About noon
the manager came down. The hay just gone and the straw
will only last a month. We have twenty-three horses.” As
a comment on this report of the condition at their farm, Mrs.
Thornton adds, “I hope we shall have more provisions this
year.” }
A centre of a good deal of the social life of the day in
the little community was the house of Thomas Peter on K
Street near the bridge and in the vicinity of quite a group
of houses for that period. The house, which is still stand-
ing, and known as 2618 K Street, is spoken of as early as
1796 as the home of Mr. Peter, who was the son of Robert
Peter of Georgetown and who married a granddaughter of Mrs.
1 The farm was “about five miles from Georgetown on the Fred-
erick Road.’? Museum, Dec. 28, 1801.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 347
Washington. At this house, according to the recollections
of an old resident, General Washington was a visitor. In
the immediate locality of the Peter home was the residence
of Joshua Johnson, a brother of Thomas Johnson, who was a
member of the first board of commissioners. The daughter of
Joshua Johnson had been married to John Quincy Adams, son
of President Adams, in London, while her father was United
States consul there? Mr. Johnson had just then received
the appointment from President Adams of stamp collector.
As early as the 19th of May, 1800, the commissioners received
word of the intention of President Adams to visit the new city,
and on the 27th of that month Mr. Adams left Philadelphia
in his own carriage drawn by four horses. He was accompanied
by his private secretary, William Smith Shaw. Instead of tak-
ing the route along the banks of the Delaware River, and thence
along the east shore of the Chesapeake to Kent, where the bay
was crossed, to Annapolis, or perhaps the one more generally
used, by crossing the Susquehanna River at Havre de Grasse
and thence via Baltimore and Bladensburg, he chose the longer
route via Lancaster and York in Pennsylvania, and thence by
Frederick to Georgetown. At all the points mentioned he was
the recipient of many attentions, being met and escorted by
military companies and presented with addresses, as was the
custom of the day. Although he had been and was then the
centre of a fierce political feud, which rent the federal party in
twain and had partially broken up the cabinet, and in addition
was again the candidate for the presidency in the coming fall
election, there is no evidence of all this in the reports of the
attentions which he received. This was the case in the state of
Pennsylvania, where a solid federal ticket was chosen in Novem-
ber, as well as in Maryland, where the electoral ticket was
divided between Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, and also in
Virginia, where the entire vote of the state was given to Mr.
Jefferson.
1 Early Recollections of Washington City, p. 15. Christian Hines,
Washington, 1866.
2 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. 7, p. 536.
348 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Three days before the president reached Georgetown a meet-
ing of citizens was held at McLaughlin’s City Tavern on M
Street, east of Wisconsin Avenue. Francis Deakins was made
chairman, and a committee consisting of Uriah Forrest, James
M. Lingan and William Hammond Dorsey was appointed to
prepare an address to be presented to the president upon his
arrival, expressive of the high respect entertained by the cit-
izens for his character and gratitude for his distinguished ser-
vices.
On June 3 the president was met at the District line by
citizens on horseback and escorted to the Union Tavern, and
a salute was fired by the military “of the city of Washington
and the marines established there.” !
The president decided to remain in Georgetown that night
in order to receive an address from the citizens, which was pre-
sented next day. A brief response was made by the president,
in the course of which he extended his congratulations to the
inhabitants of the town on the removal of the seat of govern-
ment to the city so near to their town. He expressed the hope
that “all the reluctance which remained against the change
will soon be removed.” ?
The afternoon of June 4 the president continued his journey
and passed over the Rock Creek Bridge at K Street into the
new city. He stopped to inspect the house which was being pre-
pared for his use and also visited the treasury building, and
then went on to Tunnicliff’s Hotel, where he stayed while in the
city.
A meeting of citizens of Washington had also been held to
arrange for a formal reception, and Tristam Dalton had been
1 Centinel of Liberty, June 6, 1800. Under date of March 25, 1800,
Colonel W. W. Burrows, the commandant of the Marine Corps, writing to
Lieutenant Thomas Barclay at Alexandria, states that ‘‘a guard has been
ordered from Baltimore under the care of a sergeant and is expected to
arrive at the city of Washington by March 31. You must immediately
see and provide quarters for them at the navy yard.’’ Letter Books.
United States Marine Corps. As there were no buildings ready at
the navy yard, the marines were stationed in Georgetown.
2 Presidential Journey in 1800. Hugh T. Taggart, Coll. Hist. Soc.,
p. 193, Vol. 3.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 349
selected to present an address. It was arranged that the pres-
entation should be held in the capitol building. At noon the
‘day following the president’s arrival Dr. Thornton and Mr.
Dalton went to the hotel and escorted the distinguished visitor
to the capitol, where he received an address from Mr. Dalton
and made a brief reply.
The president and his secretary dined that day at the resi-
dence of Joshua Johnson, his son’s father-in-law. The dinner
hour of that day was two o’clock, and at six o’clock a company
was invited to tea and to meet the president. But, as Mrs.
Thornton recorded, the after-dinner company did not see much
of the guest of honor, as “the President did not come into the
drawing-room till tea was ready and went immediately after.’’ !
Mrs. William Cranch, a niece of Mrs. Adams, was given a place
in the president’s carriage and taken home. The next day,
June 6, the president was entertained at dinner at Mc-
Laughlin’s City Tavern by the citizens of Georgetown, on
which occasion there was a large company, and seventeen
toasts were drunk. The president left the festive scene be-
fore sunset.
General Uriah Forrest entertained the president at dinner
at his home in Georgetown the following day, and it was on that
occasion the president explained to Dr. Thornton, who was one
of the guests, that he would be unable to stop at Dr. Thornton’s
house as he had intended to do, to see the plans of the capitol,
because he had not the time.
The following day, which was Sunday, June 8, the president
dined at Thomas Peter’s residence, and afterwards a large com-
pany was invited for tea. But Mrs. Thornton again records
what must have been a social habit, that “the President went
early in the afternoon.” Instead of going to his hotel he visited
Mr. Dalton.
On Monday, June 9, he left the city for Mount Vernon, to pay
his respects to the widow of his predecessor. Upon his return
on the 11th of June he stopped at Alexandria, where he was
given a dinner by the citizens of that place, which was attended
1 Coll. Hist. Soe., p. 152, Vol. 10..
350 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
a
by upwards of 100 people;*“more subscribed and could not
get into the room.’’?
That afternoon the president left Alexandria and spent the
night at McLaughlin’s Tavern, and the next day went to Tunni-
cliff’s. On the morning of June 13 he left the city, after a stay
of ten days, and returned to his home in Braintree via Baltimore.
The president had the satisfaction of seeing the executive
departments of the government established in the new city
before he left.?
The first of the offices to be opened in Washington was the
post-office department, on the 11th of June. In the absence at
his home in Georgia of the postmaster-general, Mr. Habersham,
the removal was under the direction of Abraham Bradley, Jr.,
the assistant postmaster-general. He arrived in the city May
30, but’ not finding the situation of the house selected con-
venient, he leased the three-story house of Dr. John Crocker at
the northeast corner of 9th and E streets, N. W. But as half
the floors were not laid, and only four rooms were plastered,
more than a week, as well as half of the year’s rent, amounting to
$300, was spent before it was ready for the new uses. Some
notion may be gained of the volume of the governmental busi-
ness of the day from Mr. Bradley’s account of the disposition
of the space in the building leased for its use, better perhaps
than from the mere statement that the total number of employees,
including the postmaster-general and the assistant, was only
nine. One large room, 27 X 17 feet, he states, and two small
rooms, each 15 X 14 feet, on the second floor were assigned for
the department. On the first floor were two rooms which the
city post-office occupied after June 20, when it was removed
1 Thornton Diary, p. 154.
2“The following public offices are removed from Philadelphia.
Office of the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the
Navy, and General Post-Office. Letters and newspapers must in future
be directed to the respective officers at the city of Washington.”
Daily Advertiser, June 11, 1800.
* Letters of Abraham Bradley to Joseph Habersham and also to
Robert Patten. June 2 and 11, 1800. Letter Books. P. O. D.
Printed in Senate Doc. No. 62, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 1900.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 351
from the F Street location. On the third floor were the liv-
ing quarters of Mr. Bradley’s family.
Yet small as the post-office department was, still Mr.
Bradley states “it' took us a week to prepare to move, load,
etc., and it will take another week to get our things in proper
order.”
The other departments were relatively on no more extensive
scale than the one Mr. Bradley had in charge. The treasury
department was the largest, and enrolled sixty-nine persons.
The furniture and records belonging to it, as they were unloaded
at Lear’s stone warehouse at G and 26th streets from the sailing
vessels that brought them from Philadelphia, were carted to the
only executive office building then completed, which was known
at the outset as the treasury office. The secretary of the treas-
ury, Oliver Wolcott, arrived in the city July 2. He found the
employees of the state department, seven in number, crowded
in the treasury office. But this situation was relieved by
August 27, when that department was removed to one of the
Six Buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, between 21st and 22d
streets.!
There is reason to believe the fifteen employees on the rolls of
the navy office also occupied one of these buildings.”
On the opposite side of Pennsylvania Avenue, in a three-story
house leased from Joseph Hodgson, was established the war
department, with its eighteen employees.
The details of boxing and packing the property of the depart-
ments, as well as the direction of its transportation, was intrusted
to Israel Whelan, who held the then recently created office of
purveyor of public supplies. The total cost of this part of the
removal was $15,293, while the expenses of the 131 employees
paid out of the treasury aggregated $32,872.
1 The Department of State, p. 30, Washington, 1898.
2 National Intelligencer, Dec. 8, 1800, a notice in an advertisement
to those desiring to secure lodging to apply to William O’Neal three
doors east of the navy office. Mr. O’Neal’s house was located on
the north side of I Street, between 20th and 21st streets.
3 Report of the committee appointed to examine and report whether
moneys drawn from the treasury have been faithfully applied, House
352 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The originals of the itemized bills or vouchers of the various
individuals for the most part are not now in existence, but in
the office of the register of the treasury has been preserved
the bill rendered by John Little, a clerk in that office. Mr.
Little had a family of nine persons, and spent six days on the
road, although the regular stage schedule between Philadelphia
and Washington was at that time but two days. It cost Mr.
Little $100 for the hire of a carriage for himself and family and
$72 for expenses on the road for six days. He also made a
charge of $30 “for board after our arrival in Washington until
the house was put in repair to receive us.’’ He also charged an
item of $30 for board for himself and family in Philadelphia
after the shipment of the furniture, “my official duty compelling
me to remain in Philadelphia till the 1st of July in order to
complete the dividends for the payment of interest.” All to-
gether his bill amounted to $445.1
Two of Mr. Little’s fellow-clerks in the register’s office were
paid still larger amounts, while on the other hand some of the
bills were less than $100. The government paid $101.80 to
defray the travelling expenses incurred by Charles Lee, the
attorney-general, in removing his family of eight persons from
Philadelphia to Washington, his entire bill being for $338. In
this instance the removal took place in the early summer of
1799. Samuel Meredith, the treasurer of the United States,
gave as one item of his expense of coming to the new city the
total amounting to $516.54, “dead rent of house in Philadelphia
two months $105.”
Richard Harrison, auditor, was paid $373, which included the
public stage charge for himself and a servant and a private
carriage for Mrs. Harrison and three servants. He also included
Report, April 29, 1802. Appendix G contains the vouchers for pay-
ments made at the treasury for the removal of the officers and clerks
of the several executive departments and the two houses of congress
to the seat of government. This appendix, giving the name and the
amount paid to each employee, and in some instances the itemized bill,
is reprinted in Coll. Hist. Soc., pp. 226-241, Vol. 9.
1 Removal of the seat of government, Senate Doc. No. 62, 56th
Cong., 1st Sess., 1900.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 353
in his account an entry of $93 for rent paid in Georgetown for
a house previous to June 11, at which date he gave up his house
in Philadelphia. It cost Joseph Nourse, register of the treas-
ury, $250 for the hire of two carriages for the conveyance of
Mrs. Nourse, children, five servants and himself, including the
expenses on the way. He paid $300 a year rent for his house in
Philadelphia, and he was reimbursed for two months and a half,
or from the 1st of April when the rent for his house in George-
town began. Mr. Nourse’s total expenses amounted to $799.
The accountant for the war department, William Simmons,
made a charge, as did several of the others, for the expense of
coming on to Washington to procure a house, and after he and
his family, eleven in number, arrived in Georgetown, he had to
pay $30 to get them and the furniture to his house on the Eastern
Branch, a distance which he sets down as upwards of three
miles. His bill aggregated $717.
A committee of the house of representatives, which was
appointed, as soon as the federal majority was succeeded by a
democratic majority, to make a thorough investigation into the
expenditure of the public funds by the preceding administra-
tion, reported that in its judgment the act of June, 1790, pro-
vided only for defraying the expenses incident to the removal
of the offices, and that therefore the entire sum paid for the
expenses of the employees was without legal authority. This
construction of the law was evidently not sustained by congress,
as the report was received and no further action was taken.
The impressions which the city made upon the newcomers
can only be partially gathered from the only two accounts
which have been preserved. One is to be found in the letter
written by Abraham Bradley on the 11th of June, to which
reference has been made. Mr. Bradley was of the opinion that
the houses were inadequate in number. He also records that
the rentals asked were high. He found that provisions were
plentiful and cheaper than in Philadelphia. He does not
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 9, p. 219. Also Oliver Wolcott’s reply to the
arguments advanced by the committee in an address to the people of
the United States. Hartford, 1802.
VOL.I—2A
354 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
regret the removal. “The. situation of the city is beautiful
and this season is extremely pleasant.”
The other picture of Washington, from a contemporary pen,
was written July 4 by Oliver Wolcott, the secretary of the
treasury, to his wife.
Mr. Wolcott was then the only representative of the Hamilton
wing of the federal party who still held a seat in the cabinet.
In the following November he resigned, to take effect at the
first of the year, and thus he freed himself from what historians
have termed a decidedly ambiguous situation. It is probable
the uncertainty of his own situation gave some shade to the
gloom in which he evidently viewed the new capital. He, how-
ever, regarded the situation of the city as “pleasant and indeed
beautiful,” and it may be said that he voiced in this respect
what may be termed an impression of the city that was general
in his day. He saw no other prospect for the members of con-
gress who wished to live comfortably than to seek accommoda-
tions in Georgetown, and that is what many of them did: “There
are, in fact,” he adds, “but few houses at any one place and most
of them small miserable huts, which present an awful contrast
to the public buildings. The people are poor, and as far as I
can judge, they live like fishes, by eating each other. .
“There are at [Greenleaf’s Point] fifty or sixty spacious
houses, five or six of which are occupied by negroes and vagrants,
and a few more by decent-looking people, but there are no fences,
gardens, nor the least appearance of business.”
To Mrs. John Adams, who came to the new place for the first
time Noy. 16, 1800, it was a city onlyin name. It is a beautiful
spot, she adds, “capable of any improvement, and the more I
view it the more I am delighted with it.’ ?
The impression which the place made upon the mind of Mrs.
Samuel Harrison Smith, who came to the city a bride in October,
1800, was strong enough to enable her thirty-seven years later
to draw a picture that is one of the most charming of those that
1 Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and J. Adams.,
Vol. 2.
2 Letters of Mrs. Adams, pp. 432-435. OC. F. Adams, 1840.
REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT 30D
have been preserved. She lived south of the capitol, on New
Jersey Avenue which, near that building, extended along the brow
of the hill. Between the foot of that hill and the broad Poto-
mac, she writes, “extended a wide plain through which the Tiber
wound its way. . . . Its banks were shaded by tall and umbra-
geous forest trees. . . . Beautiful banks of the Tiber ! delight-
ful rambles! happy hours! ... Not only the banks of the
Tiber but those of the Potomak and Anacosta were at this
period adorned with native trees and shrubs and were distin-
guished by as romantic scenery as any rivers in our country.
Indeed the whole plain was diversified with groves and clumps
of forest trees which gave it the appearance of a fine park.” !
Within the entire area of the city comprising over six thou-
sand acres the commissioners found on the first of May, 1800,
there were 109 buildings of brick and 263 of wood.?
The second census of the United States, taken during the
year 1800, gives the total population of the District of Columbia
in Maryland, including Georgetown, as 8144. While the popu-
lation of Alexandria is put down as 5171, and that of part of
Fairfax County, Va., within the bounds of the District as 973.
The population of the District was 14,303.
In the schedules of the enumerators which are still preserved
are given the names of heads of families in the Maryland por-
tion except Georgetown, making a total of 615. Allowing five
persons to each family, the population for Washington and
Washington County would be 3075, while the figures usually
quoted, although their source is unknown, credit Washington
City with a population of 3210, Washington County with 1941
and Georgetown with 2993. According to the same authority,
which gives only the total for Alexandria and Alexandria
County, the population of that part of the District was
5949.3
1 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 10.
2 An enumeration of the houses in the city of Washington made
November, 1801, giving those in a habitable state May 15, 1800, and
houses finished since that time. American State Papers, Miscellaneous,
Vol. 1, p. 256.
3 The figures given in the Intelligencer, Nov. 17, 1810, of the particu-
356 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
According to the official enumeration, the population of 8144
credited to Washington City, Washington County and George-
town included 3038 white males, 2634 white females, 400 free
persons and 2072 slaves.
lar apportionment of the population of Washington by the census
of 1800 are as follows:
Whitetmales": <5 =.) fr) S eldoo
Whitefemales s.ch2 eh eel) 2.1129
All other free persons Sime) Alco
SIGVOR Sat yg. soe hath OO
3210
In the /ntelligencer, April 23, 1811, the returns for 1810 are also given
as follows: Washington City, 8208; Georgetown, 4948; Washington
County, 2315; Alexandria, 7227; Alexandria Co., 1325; Total, 24,023.
CHAPTER XIV
WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERN-
MENT
THE removal of the seat of government to a new location
where nearly one million of dollars had been expended during
the nine years of preparation was apparently an event that
attracted but little attention. A few brief paragraphs in the
Philadelphia newspapers confined to announcements about
the change in the address of mail matter intended to reach the
executive departments were practically all the contemporary
notice given to the removal.!
Only indirect references are found to this important change in
the record of the daily meetings of the commissioners, and in
fact there is no official or formal account to be found in the
public records. The letter heads of the official communications
of the departments, however, show that about the middle of
June the new city had become the seat of government.”
The newcomers arrived before all the work of preparation
had been completed. They saw gangs of laborers making the
first improvements since the clearing away of the forest trees
on what has become the most historic street in this country,
the broad stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue west of the capitol
and to the west of the president’s house. At that time, accord-
ing to the recollections of John Cotton Smith, a representative
from Connecticut who came to the city in the fall of 1800,
1 The only direct notice that appeared in the Centinel of Liberty, the
one newspaper then printed in the portion of the District on the east
side of the Potomac, was a copy in its issue of June 3 of what had been
printed in the Philadelphia Daily Aurora of May 28, giving the new
address of the state department. It seems probable this was paid
matter.
2Removal of the government to Washington. J. B. Osborne.
Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 3, p. 150.
357
358 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Pennsylvania Avenue was for nearly the entire distance between
these points “a deep morass covered with elder bushes which
were cut through the width of the intended avenue during the
then ensuing winter.”’ He also states that a sidewalk of chips
of stone from the capitol “extended but a little way.” !
A month after the act passed authorizing an appropriation
for making footways “in suitable places,” the surveyor was
directed by the commissioners “to stake out that part of Penn-
sylvania Avenue which lies between the President’s Square
and the capitol for the purpose of paving a footway.”
A few days later contracts were made on a more ambitious
scale, as they provided for “flat stone and also for laying the
same so as to make a footway six feet wide from Rock Creek
to the Capitol.”? In addition to the footway, ditches were
directed to be dug on each side, and the earth thus removed
was to be thrown in the middle of the street, which was to be
levelled, with the view of providing a topcoat of gravel. Ditches
were also to be dug on the side streets and carried under the
footway so as to take off the water. It was also the purpose
to sod on each side of the foot pavement. Some notion may
be had of the then condition of this splendid thoroughfare from
the public notice issued by the commissioners requesting those
who have “brick yards in Pennsylvania Avenue which are in the
way of the pavers and ditchers to remove them at once.”” Mrs.
Thornton, who visited the scene of this improvement on the last
day of May, 1800, states the footway is to be of common foun-
dation stone.’
“Fragments of free stone”? — probably the chips from the
stones used in the walls of the capitol — is the phrase of the
commissioners in describing the material, when later in the
season, a few weeks before the arrival of congress, provision
1 Correspondence and Miscellanies of the Hon. John Cotton Smith,
New York, 1847, p. 147. Mr. Smith’s account of the city was written
some years after the events described. A review of this portion of the
work by George Watterston appeared in the National Intelligencer,
Aug. 26, 1847.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, May 23 and 27, 1800.
8 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10, p. 149.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 359
was made to continue the footway as far west as 20th
Street.!
The section west of the president’s house was six feet wide.
A bridge of stone was built over the Tiber where it crossed
Pennsylvania Avenue at 2d Street, and the original intention
apparently was that its cost was not to be taken from the
paving fund, but this was not fully realized?
The mode of providing for this municipal improvement fur-
nishes the earliest instance of that curious medley in the Dis-
trict of English common law, national, state, county and city
laws, which owed its existence in part at least to the clause in the
law of 1790 directing that the operations of the laws of Virginia
and Maryland should not be affected until congress should
otherwise direct. So while the city authorities were spending
the congressional appropriation on Pennsylvania Avenue and
several years before had spent the city funds in the preliminary
clearing off of the trees, the levy court of Prince George County
decided to expend some of the money raised by taxation from
the citizens of the county which included the city in erecting a
bridge in the city of Washington and on property the title
to which was vested in the United States.®
However, later on in the season the commissioners made an
appropriation of money from the paving fund to complete the
structure, so that apparently the levy court had not secured
sufficient money.
Another bridge was contracted for at this time to take the
place of the structure that formerly spanned Rock Creek on a
line with M Street. It was placed a short distance to the north
of Pennsylvania Avenue, was built of wood, three hundred
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Oct. 20, 1800.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book, October, 1800.
3 Centinel of Liberty, July 22, 1800. Notice of Daniel Carroll of
Duddington and Robert Brent asking proposals for erecting the Tiber
bridge as authorized by the levy court. It was evidently the first
expenditure in the way of improvements in the new city made by the
levy court, which the writer of a communication in the National Intel-
ligencer of Dee. 3, 1800, asserted, had collected « heavy annual tax from
the citizens of Washington ‘without having expended any of it on the
streets.”
360 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
feet long and eighteen feet>wide and twenty feet above the
common level of the waters, and cost $2200. It was to provide
practically for a continuation of Pennsylvania Avenue as there
was a bridge at K Street. The cost was divided between two of
the then existing governmental agencies, namely the commis-
sioners of the city of Washington and the corporation of George-
town, their joint action being justified, no doubt, by the considera-
tion that Rock Creek was the dividing line between the two
jurisdictions.
The contribution of Georgetown was supplemented by sub-
scriptions from citizens of that place. At any rate, whatever
the theory was on which this public undertaking was financed,
the facts are that the “paving fund,” as it was called, or the con-
gressional appropriation for footways in the new city contrib-
uted $1000, the corporation and citizens of Georgetown $700
and the commissioners $500. The contract for building the
bridge was awarded to Leonard Harbaugh, whose device for
arches brought the first bridge on the line of K Street down in
ruins a few years earlier, but in this instance the recognized rules
for bridge building were evidently observed, as the structure
stood.!. This expenditure, as well as that for the footways on
Pennsylvania Avenue intended to be made from the capitol to
Georgetown, was attributed by the author of a communication
in the Intelligencer of Dec. 3, 1800, as due to the partiality of
the city authorities to Georgetown. “If there is a lack of build-
ings around the capitol,’ he explained, “it can be solely attrib-
uted to the little encouragement given.” His feeling that
there was favoritism shown towards the western section of the
city which was especially injurious to the interests of the locality
about the capitol was not appeased by the public announce-
ment over the signature of John M. Gantt “that the record
office for the territory of Columbia had been removed from
Georgetown to the city of Washington, three squares east of the
President’s.”’?
This description leaves the first location in this city of this
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Sept. 11, 1800.
2 Centinel of Liberty, May 13, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 361
important office almost as indefinite as that of the commis-
sioners’ office or its previous site in Georgetown. The Presi-
dent’s Square at that time included the entire grounds between
15th and 17th streets, and from H Street to the Mall, comprising
what is now known as Lafayette Park. A location three squares
east along Pennsylvania Avenue or F Street would be in the
vicinity of 12th Street, and therefore near to the city post-office.
The latter, however, on the 20th of October was removed to the
building at the northeast corner of 9th and E streets, N. W.,
leased for the use of the post-office department.1
On the square east of the post-office department and in the
Great Hotel building was opened August 22 the United States
Theatre, the first regular place of amusement in the new city.”
The company from the New Theatre, one of the two theatres in
Philadelphia under the management of Messrs. Wignell and
Reinagle, remained nearly two months, giving three performances
each week. As the building was unfinished and of course
entirely without a stage or scenery, the initial expense must
have been considerable, and besides that, Washington in the
summer of 1800 did not prove to be a good field, and in con-
sequence the enterprising managers did not repeat the experi-
ment. A prologue written by Thomas Law, who had quite a
turn for versification — occasional verses, rather than anything
in a more ambitious line— was recited by Mr. Wignell; but in
spite of this attraction, as well as a program of a tragedy fol-
lowed by a farce in two acts, the audience on the opening night
numbered but 130.3 What was considered a full house was
three hundred, and that was secured on several occasions. The
doors were opened at six o’clock and the curtain rose at seven,
and sometimes, as the only chronicler of the day, Mrs. Thornton,
states, the performance was over about eleven o’clock, and then
again it was an hour later.
The demands upon the city funds were far greater than any
1 Post-Office moved to General Post-Office. Mrs. Thornton’s Diary,
Oct. 20, 1800. Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 10.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Aug. 22, 1800.
3 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, p. 183. Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 10. Early
Theatres in Washington. A. I. Mudd. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 5.
362 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
possible response. Early inthe season the final loan had been
secured from the state of Maryland of $50,000 in United States
six per cent stock, from the sale of which at the market value,
about $40,000 was realized. But more money was needed to
place the public buildings in readiness, and early in August
the experiment was attempted of reviving the old expedient of
a public sale of lots, but as the commissioners soon found, such
events, instead of producing money, ‘ only produced bad paper
and perplexity.”
For the first time in the history of the city, the commis-
sioners began to make liberal concessions to buyers of the
city lots, providing always they became builders. Such con-
cessions had been previously tried, but not on such a scale.
Instead of taking off a few cents on the square foot as an induce-
ment to builders the commissioners at this time almost cut their
prices in half.
This policy, as well as a conviction that was quite generally
entertained at this period, not only by those interested in city
property, but by outsiders, that the complete removal of the
government would give a spring to city affairs and produce an
active market, stimulated building.”
‘This latter condition is shown by the appointment of an
official to have charge of the survey of lots and the certifying
of levels to those about to build. A fee of $2 and expenses was
fixed for this service and Robert King, Jr., son of Robert King
the surveyor, in the employ of the commissioners, was appointed
to that position.
The growing importance of Washington as a centre may be
1 Commissioners to Secretary of State, Aug. 27, 1800. Commis-
sioners’ Letter Book.
2 A few days before congress met a notice was issued by the com-
missioners that ‘‘in order to give gentlemen from remote parts of the
country an opportunity to purchase lots in the city of Washington, sales
which began Oct. 10 at the Little Hotel will be continued from day to
day ’till the whole are sold.”” Proceedings of Commissioners Nov. 14,
1800.
* Proceedings of Commissioners, Aug. 20, 1800. ‘‘Mr. Brent showed
us a list of houses building at this time — 68 of brick and numberless
wooden ones.”” Mrs. Thornton’s Diary. Aug. 24, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 363
inferred from the notices of stage lines and routes and the hours
of service as set forth in the advertising columns of the Centinel
of Liberty during the spring and summer and autumn months
of 1800.
Travellers could have a weekly service between Georgetown
and Annapolis, and a daily service between Georgetown and
Alexandria and Baltimore. Leaving the stage office adjoining
the Fountain Inn, Baltimore, at 11 a.m., the destination would
be reached the evening of the same day, a journery of nine hours
for those living in Georgetown. For those who wished to go to
Alexandria, the night was spent in Georgetown and the journey
resumed the next day. The fare from Georgetown to Baltimore
was $4 and $3.50, with an allowance of twenty pounds weight
of baggage. Leaving Georgetown at 4 a.M., Baltimore would
be reached at one o’clock P.M. The next morning at three A.M.
the journey could be resumed to Philadelphia, which would be
reached the following morning after a trip of twenty-two hours.
The fare from Baltimore to Philadelphia was $8, or from Wash-
ington $11.50.
A stage service that was adequate in May, 1800, apparently
did not meet the requirements of those who the following month
wanted to travel between Baltimore and the District towns, so
that early in June of that year arrangements were made by which
the stage left Alexandria at 3 a.m., Georgetown 5 A.M., Tunni-
cliff’s Tavern 6 A.M., thus shortening the time between George-
town and Baltimore one hour, as well as making the trip from
Alexandria to Baltimore in one day.”
The pioneer daily service between Georgetown and Washing-
ton was started in May, 1800, when a two-horse stage was put
on the route, leaving M Street near Wisconsin Avenue at half
1 Centinel of Liberty, May 6 and July 11, 1860.
2The same, June 6, 1800. In the issue of July 15 the Little
Hotel is mentioned as a stopping place of one of the lines of the Phila-
delphia, Baltimore and Washington City stages, for evidently there was
competition. The proprietors of the above-mentioned line announced
that their coaches left Baltimore at 2 a.m. and errived in Philadelphia
at nine the evening of the same day, thus reducing the time from twenty-
two to nineteen hours.
364 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
after eight in the morning and going to Tunnicliff’s Tavern.
Returning to the starting point by 11 a.M., the horses were
ready for another trip at 2 P.M., returning by 5 P.M.
In April, 1800, a stage ran once a week between Georgetown
and Frederick, which by the middle of July had become semi-
weekly. The stage left at 4 a.m. and reached Frederick the
evening of the same day. The fare was $3.1
No more characteristic feature of the city during the coming
years can be pointed out than its newspapers, which owed their
origin mainly to the fact that Washington was the seat of govern-
ment. The organ or organs of the dominant political party
were naturally the most prominent in the long list of newspapers
that sprang into being and then passed away. But in addition
the minority party had at times its newspaper, while special
causes and reforms were provided with such vehicles of expres-
sion and publicity. At the very outset, in a little more than a
month after the city had become the seat of government, this
phase found expression, and the terms of the announcement of
these new enterprises show very clearly that it was Washingten
as the seat of government, and more especially as the meeting
place of congress, that was the motive, and not Washington the
town. For more than two years Washington had been without
a newspaper, and while the population had increased, there had
been no attempt to supply a successor to the Washington
Gazette. In the latter part of July, 1800, the pioneer in what
proved to be a long and varied list of newspapers, was an-
nounced. “On the first day of the next session of Congress,”
so the notice read,’ a daily paper would be published in the city
of Washington under the title of the Washington Advertiser.
“Mr. Brown, editor of the Federal Gazette, will be one of the
proprietors.”
At this time, too, Messrs. Green and English, the proprietors
of the Centinel of Liberty of Georgetown, then having passed its
fourth anniversary, gave notice of their purpose to publish a
1 Centinel of Liberty, July 22, 1800.
? The same, July 25, 1800. The prospectus appeared in the issue
of Aug. 12, 1800, signed Brown and Snowden.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 365
daily paper “when Congress removes to the City of Washing-
ton.”
A few weeks later in the same medium appeared the pro-
spectus of the National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser,
that was to be published by Samuel Harrison Smith on the
first of October, 1800, in the new city.1 It was to appear three
times a week, and was to be “conducted on national principles.”
This prospectus also appeared in the Universal Gazette of Phila-
delphia, a weekly paper which Mr. Smith had been conducting
for more than three years succeeding his first venture in the
journalistic line, the New World, which for two months in 1796
was issued twice a day, morning and evening. However, this
novel scheme for that period was soon abandoned for one daily
issue. In the following year the publication of a paper friendly
to the political aspirations of Mr. Jefferson was looked upon
as desirable.
To accomplish this object, Mr. Smith purchased from Joseph
A. Gales a weekly published in Philadelphia under the name
of the Independent Gazeteer. Changing the name to the
Universal Gazette, Mr. Smith began the publication Nov. 16,
1797. It was by Jefferson’s advice and through his encourage-
ment that the young editor, then in his twenty-eighth year,
decided to transfer his printing plant to the new city. He also
took to himself a wife, marrying on the 28th of September, 1800,
Margaret Bayard, the daughter of Colonel John Bayard, a
soldier of the revolutionary army and a member of the con-
tinental congress. The young couple established their home
in one of the Ten Buildings on New Jersey Avenue between
D and E streets, S. E., where the printing office was located
and where the Intelligencer was published during the first year
of its existence.”
Jefferson’s substantial interest in the young man, who served
as secretary of the American Philosophical Society when
Jefferson was the president, was early manifested after Mr.
1 Centinel of Liberty, Aug. 27, 1800.
2 Recollections of George Watterston, National Intelligencer, Aug. 26,
1847.
366 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Smith came to the new city, as he called at his house one day
in December, 1800, bringing to be printed the manuscript
of what came to be known as Jefferson’s manual, which ap-
peared Feb. 27, 1801.1. The Universal Gazette continued to
be published in the new city as a weekly.?. In his prospectus
Mr. Smith gave notice that in the Intelligencer another plan
would be pursued than had been the case with the Gazette.
In the publication of the latter he states he had confined him-
self to recording events as they occurred and in giving the opin-
ions of others rather than his own. But he proposed in the
Intelligencer “to enlighten not only by fact but by reason.
The tendency of public measures and the conduct of public
men will be examined with candor and truth.”
To what extent this plan was a departure from the course
pursued by newspapers of the day, could only be determined with
exactness by a study of the contemporaries of the Intelligencer.
But it is quite evident from even a casual inspection of the
Philadelphia Aurora, edited by William Duane, or even of the
Washington Gazette, that before the appearance of the Intelli-
gencer there were not lacking editors who expressed their
opinions freely about current events and did not content them-
selves with making their newspapers merely the vehicles of
publishing current happenings and the opinions of other men
and not their own.
The earliest of the newspaper enterprises to materialize was
the Washington Federalist, which had its office in Georgetown
and made its first appearance as a tri-weekly on the 25th of
September, 1800. The publishers were William Alexander
Rind and John Stewart,? who had removed the paper from
1 First Forty years of Washington Society, p. 6, also issue of Intel-
ligencer, Feb. 27, 1807.
* With the issue of the Intelligencer, the Gazette became its weekly
edition. Its publication was continued to 1814.
’ Later on Charles Prentiss, a young Harvard College graduate, was
the associate of Mr. Rind. He was the publisher of the Child of Pallas,
a weekly literary journal which was issued in Baltimore about Dee. 1,
1800. Only eight numbers were printed. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 4, p. 44.
Also Vol. 9, p. 97. See also note under Washington Federalist in
catalogue of newspaper files in Library of Wisconsin Hist. Soe.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 367
Richmond, Va., where it was published as the Virginia Federal-
ast. As the publishers stated, the paper was to appear daily
during the sessions of congress and thrice a week before and
after at six dollars per annum. A week before congress con-
vened, however, the publication ceased, in order, as the
readers were informed, to enable the necessary preparations to
be made for the change to a daily issue.! The career thus
begun continued for some nine years.
Following closely upon the first appearance of the Federalist
came a second candidate for public favor, but appealing to the
opposite party, then on the eve of its first victory. This was
The Cabinet of the United States, a daily that began publication in
Georgetown about the first of October. The proprietor was
James Lyon, a son of Matthew Lyon, the latter a newspaper
editor of Vermont and a member of the House of Representatives
from that state, having been elected while serving a sentence
in prison under the sedition laws. Like his father, James Lyon
was an ardent supporter of Jefferson, and had been publishing
a newspaper in his interests in Richmond, called The Friend of the
People, and also the National Magazine. He removed his print-
ing press to Georgetown, where he continued the publication
of the National Magazine, the first periodical to be printed in
the District. According to a statement signed by a number of
citizens that appeared in the Centinel of Liberty. Sept. 9, 1800,
and commenting on an article printed in The Cabinet, the
purpose in publishing the latter paper was to influence the
presidential election then pending. As far as known, no copy
of the Cabinet has been preserved, but from references to it in
other papers of the day it is evident that Mr. Lyon did not
hesitate to express freely his opinions.’
1 Washington Federalist, Nov. 11, 1200.
2 In the manuscript notes of Peter Force in the Library of Congress
he states he had seen one issue, that of Jan. 5, 1801, No. 79, from which
he copied the following: ‘‘a national paper by J. Lyon, printer to the
sovereign people.
‘Published daily in the District of Columbia at 5 dollars a year, half
paid in advance [Motto] Moderate salaries, frequent elections and
universal suffrage.”’
368 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
One issue of the National Magazine of this period of its exist-
ence has been preserved, if the accuracy of a title can be relied
on that appeared in a book sales catalogue in this country of
Oct. 25, 1909, which read as follows: “National Magazine by
James Lyon, Vol. 2, No. 7. District of Columbia, 1800.” In
the latter part of October, 1801 the two publications of James
Lyon were combined and appeared under the name of the
National Magazine or Cabinet of the United States, and under the
editorship of Richard Dinmore. It was published weekly to
Jan. 11, 1802, by the Washington Printing and Bookselling
Co. that used in its imprint the title Franklin Press.1 The
publishers of the Centinel of Liberty, with the plan of issuing
a daily still in mind, during the summer of 1800 informed the
public the daily would appear “some time in October next
under the title of the Museum and Washington and Georgetown
Daily Advertiser. Also the Washington Museum, to be pub-
lished three times a week.” ”
But October came and went, and in the meanwhile a daily
newspaper had entered the field, two tri-weeklies and a weekly,
so the Georgetown publishers reached the conclusion which was
announced in the issue of their paper of Dec. 4, 1800, that the
prospect of another daily paying expenses was not encouraging
enough to warrant the risk. However, they concluded to issue
three times a week instead of twice a week. The Centinel was
federal in politics, and with the Federalist of the same political
hue, and the Anti-federalists or Republicans represented by
the Cabinet and the Intelligencer, the newspaper political
equipoise seemed to be maintained.
The first issue under the new name of the Musewm and Wash-
ington and Georgetown Advertiser occurred Nov. 18, 1800, and
it was also Volume 1, No. 1, thus closing completely the career
of the Centinel of Liberty.
The third daily, of which a prospectus only had been pub-
1 In the Duane pamphlets, Library of Congress, is No. III of the Na-
tional Magazine or Cabinet of the United States of Nov. 19, 1801. The
Library also has Nos. 5,6,7,and 8. Issues of the District of Columbia
Press in 1800-1802. A. P.C. Griffin. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Aug. 29, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 369
lished, did not appear on Monday, Nov. 17th, the date of the
assembling of congress, as the prospective publishers, Messrs.
Brown and Snowden had announced, but that was due, they
explained, to the non-arrival of materials.1_ A couple of days’
delay would only be required, they thought, but when that time
passed and in fact an entire week, a statement was finally
issued that they had found the prospects of meeting the ex-
penses of the publication were not encouraging. Such ex-
penses, they stated, would amount to at least $4000 per annum.
Having received, they added, the most flattering encouragement
at Alexandria, their office would be removed to that place and
they expected to commence in a short time the publication of
the Alexandria Advertiser and Columbian Record.2 This expec-
tation was realized on the 8th of December, 1800, except the
new daily journal bore the name of the Alexandria Advertiser
and Commercial Intelligence, which was changed in September,
1803, to the Alexandria Daily Advertiser. The publishers were
Alexander Snowden and Co., who purchased the establishment
of the Columbia Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, a semi-weekly
and at one time a tri-weekly, which had been in existence
eight years. The publicationof a daily newspaper in Alexandria
was not an experiment, as the Times and Alexandria Advertiser
had been at that time issued daily for more than three years.
Probably about this time the change in name took place, and
it became the Times and District of Columbia Daily Advertiser.*
The Alexandria Advertiser was the advocate of the principles
of the political party then just retiring from power, but the new
enterprise flourished, as by the following June it was issued on
an enlarged sheet and the publishers announced this was done
from “a persuasion that the increasing prosperity cf the em-
porium of the District of Columbia authorizes the attempt.” 4
In about a year and a half the other daily, the Times, gave up
1 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 18, 1800.
2 Washington Federalist, Nov. 25, 1800.
3. and J. D. Wescott, publishers.
4 Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer, April 6 and
June 8, 1801. This paper is still in existence, and is issued weekly
under the name of the Alexandria Gazette.
VOL. 1—2B
370 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the struggle, and its valedietory was printed in the issue of
July 31, 1802. The first issue of the National Intelligencer
did not appear until Oct. 31, 1800, the arrival of the printing
press having been delayed by a storm which drove ashore the
vessel bearing it. The Universal Gazette made its first appear-
ance in the new field on the 6th of November, so that in the
space of some six weeks, the new city, Georgetown and Alex-
andria, had four dailies, two tri-weeklies and one magazine,
occupying a field that had been served by a daily and two
semi-weekly newspapers. Of the journals of the earlier period
the only publication north of the Potomac was the semi-weekly
Centinel of Liberty in Georgetown.
The earliest mention of the United States Supreme Court in
connection with the new federal seat occurred the latter part of
August, 1800, when a paragraph appeared in the Centinel of
Tnberty (Aug. 26), announcing the appointment of Elias B. Cald-
well as clerk of the court in place of Samuel Bayard. The court
had adjourned its February term on the 13th of that month,
before the date of the removal of the executive departments
had been fixed upon, and it therefore met for the August term
in the usual place in Philadelphia. At that time the change
was made in the office of clerk and the Georgetown paper stated
that Mr. Caldwell intended to make his home in that place.
It is quite evident he had come to the new city, although the
court did not assemble until the next term, which opened
Feb. 2, 1801. A couple of weeks before, in response to a
request to congress from the commissioners of the city for
the assignment of a room in the Capitol “for the temporary
accommodation” of the court, the senate consented to the use
of one of the committee rooms.”
A month before this action by the supreme court, another
attribute of the capital city of a nation was manifested by the
1 It was succeeded by the Columbian Advertiser and Commercial,
Mechanic, and Agricultural Gazette. Harvard Library, Aug. 4, 1802,
Vol. 1, No. 1, a tri-weekly. The last number in this file is Nov. 22,
1802, Vol. 1, No. 49.
? Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., Jan. 21, 1801, p. 734. The
room selected adjoined on the south the senate chamber.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 371
establishment there of the headquarters of the Marine Corps,
where a small detachment had been located for some weeks.
Since the organization of that arm of the military service under
the act of July 11,1798, as the corps was disbanded at the close
of the war of the revolution, the headquarters had been at
Philadelphia. The first commandant, Colonel W. W. Burrows,
accompanied the detachment to Washington, and at first the
quarters were in Georgetown.!
In a few weeks the headquarters were removed to the res-
ervation selected for the National University on E Street be-
tween 23d and 25thstreets, N. W., wheretentsweresetup. When
Colonel Burrows went with his wife to return a call made by
Mrs. Thornton he confided to her that the thermometer in his
tent on the 29th of August recorded 94. The previous week
Mrs. Thornton and her mother “went to the Hill to hear the
band, which was playing at the tents which are fixed on the
ground intended for an University.” ”
A year later the marines were still in their camp, and the
commanding officer had the same difficulty experienced ever
since at military posts, for in the proceedings of the commis-
sioners of Aug. 20, 1801, a complaint from Colonel Burrows
was recorded about Charles Purdy selling liquor to the soldiers,
“thereby occasioning great disturbance in the camp in this
city.” “The said Purdy,” the record continues, “to appear here
to-morrow morning at ten o’clock to answer the charges, or
we shall think it our duty to order his house to be pulled down,
it being on the public ground.”
1 Centinel of Liberty, July 22, 1800. There is a letter in the letter
books of the U.S. Marine Corps from Colonel Burrows dated “‘ Wash-
ington City, July 28, 1800.”
2 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, p. 181, Col. Hist. Soe., Vol. X. Aug. 21,
1800.
This is the first recorded open air concert by the marine band in the
capital city, where for so many years such events have been features
of the life of the city. The first reference to a corps of musicians in
connection with the marine corps is found in a letter dated Feb. 4, 1800,
of Colonel Burrows to Lieutenant Thomas Barclay at Alexandria, Va.,
who was evidently there on recruiting duty, suggesting the enlisting of
boys to be taught as fifers and drummers.
Siz A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
In the Intelligencer of April 3, 1801, appeared an advertise-
ment offering a premium of $100 for a “plan of a barracks for
the Marines sufficient to hold 500 men with their officers and
a house for the commandant. The plan must be so drawn as
to be capable of being hereafter enlarged, and must be so ar-
ranged as to suit the dimensions of the lot, which has an east
and west front of 615 feet and a north and south front of 250
feet. The plans must all be lodged with the Navy Office
before the Ist of May.’’ The dimensions given are those of
Square 927, bounded by 8th, 9th, G and I streets, S. E., where
the barracks were erected and where they have been ever since.
The entire 8th Street front of this square was assigned to the
public in the division and the 9th Street tier of lots to Wiliam
Prout, the original proprietor. Byanarrangementsimilarto that
made with the owners of lots acquired for the enlargement of
the navy yard reservation, lots owned by the public were given
to Mr. Prout in exchange, and on the 25th of May the title to
the entire square was vested in the public. On the 9th of June
following the commissioners agreed to sell to the United States
the square at four cents per square foot, aggregating $6247.
“General Samuel Smith being present and by direction of the
President of the United States agreeing.” !
There were other duties awaiting the marines, than serving as
an escort to the president or catering to the public pleasure
through their band. For the commissioners sought to be
relieved from the expense of providing watchmen to protect
the public structures, and they asked the secretary of the navy
“if two or more marines of those stationed in the city can be
spared for that duty during the night.” ?
There is no record that the detail requested was made.
Probably if it had been, trouble would have resulted from the
presence of armed men in military garb, where they would have
come in contact with the public. For in the tense feeling that
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, June 9, 1801. The deed was given
June 20. At that time General Smith of Maryland was serving for a
brief period, and without compensation as secretary of the navy, having
declined the appointment.
* Commissioners’ Letter Book, July 31, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 373
marked the political campaign then in progress and which
resulted in the overthrow of the federal party and the passing
of the control of the government to their opponents, all mani-
festations of authority of the central government were scrutinized
with jealous fear. This phase of the political situation was
illustrated at the election for members of the Maryland legisla-
ture held at Georgetown on the 6th of October, 1800. In the
previous spring the arrangement of election districts in Mary-
land had been changed, and Georgetown had been made the
polling place of the fifth district, including all that part of
Montgomery County lying within the territory of Columbia.?
On the day of election a file of marines in command of a
sergeant appeared at the voting place in Georgetown, for the
purpose, as explained, of arresting any enlisted men who might
be found there and bringing them back to the quarters where
they had been ordered to be restricted for the day.2 To the
editor of the Cabinet this appearance “at the hustings” of
soldiers ‘with fixed bayonets” furnished “sufficient cause for
contesting and annulling the election in this county.’”* It
is apparent that the event created much comment at the polls.
“The accumulated indignation of the citizens” was given as
a reason in the Cabinet for the withdrawal of the soldiers,
while according to the editor of the Federalist an explanation
of the circumstances allayed all indignation.
No doubt the “accumulated indignation” which the Cabinet
reports as having marked the temper of the crowd received
some accretions from the mind of the writer whose article was
written when a count of the votes showed that the federalists
were in the majority in the election district. A similar return
came from Bladensburg, which was the voting place of the district
of Prince George County, which included the city of Washing-
ton.’
1 Centinel of Liberty, May 30, 1800.
2 Washington Federalist, Oct. 11, 1800.
' The same.
4 The votes cast at Georgetown for four members to serve in the
legislature ranged from 182 to 178 for each candidate on the federal
ticket, while those on the anti-federal ticket received from 164 to
374 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
However, while Montgomery and Prince George counties
adhered to the party in power, the voters throughout the state
sent an anti-federal majority to the legislature, thus reversing
the political position of that state and placing it in the anti-
federal ranks. Virginia, however, furnished no surprise but
gave its vote to the new party.!
But this was only the preliminary skirmish to the great con-
test that closed on the 11th of November when the votes were
counted for the presidential electors who were expected to
vote for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Due notice was
given in the newspapers of the polls at Georgetown and at
Bladensburg, and in one of these notices “the Federal Republi-
cans of the city of Washington are requested to meet at the
Capitol Hill on Monday, next, being the second Monday in
November, and from thence proceed to Bladensburg, where the
election will be held.” ?
When the votes came to be counted, it was found that the
federalists at Georgetown had won by a narrow margin of
fourteen votes, while at Bladensburg their opponents had carried
the election by a majority of ten votes.
For the time the local interest in the result of the presi-
dential election, and it was not known until about the middle
of December, more than a month later, that Jefferson had
been the choice over Adams, undoubtedly gave way to in-
terest in the nearer event, and one of great moment to the
citizens, —the first meeting of congress in the new city. This
was fixed for November 17,andamonth beforethat date a call for
a meeting of citizens to be held at the Little Hotel appeared in
158 votes. At Bladensburg the federal candidates received from 270
to 216 and the anti-federalist from 220 to 204. It is evident the
Prince George County district was the largest of the two.
1 Washington Federalist, Oct. 11, 1800. Intelligencer, Oct. 31,
1800.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 7, 1800.
3 Intelligencer, Nov.12,1800. This was the last national election, and
in the case of the one preceding the last state election, participated in by
the citizens of the District, with the exception of those residing in the
Virginia portion of the District, who regained these political rights after
the retrocession act of 1846.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 375
the public press to devise a method to express their joy at the
meeting of “The Grand Council of the nation.” !
A procession was decided upon, and a committee was ap-
pointed to codperate with other committees that might be
appointed from Alexandria and Georgetown.? It was arranged
that a procession be formed in front of the Little Hotel on the
22d of November to accompany the president to the capitol, the
day selected when he was to deliver his message in the presence
of both houses of congress, as was the custom at that day.
Upon the arrival of the procession at the capitol congress was
to be presented with “a respectful and appropriate address from
the inhabitants of the territory.” But there was no proces-
sion, and Oliver Wolcott, the secretary of the treasury, records
he “was told that some dispute respecting the appointment of
a master of ceremonies prevented a display of the citizens.” 4
There is no other explanation of the failure to carry out the
plans apparently carefully matured, as calls for the assembling
of the various military bodies and the frequent meetings of
the committee on arrangements would indicate. The weather
conditions may have had something to do with it, as the day
before three inches of snow fell, “a very unusual fall of snow.” ®
However ‘‘a congratulatory letter from sundry inhabitants of
the District of Columbia’’ was presented in the House.6 A
poetically inclined citizen wrote a song inspired by the meeting
of congress, the burden of which was that the “central spot”’
should be maintained, so that the meeting of congress for the
first time in the new city did not pass without some recognition
from the public.’
1 Washington Federalist, Oct. 16, 1800.
2 Centinel of Liberty, Oct. 21,1800. Also Washington Federalist same
date. The committee consisted of Leonard Harbaugh, William Lovering,
James Hoban, Robert Brent, John Kearney, Clotworthy Stephenson,
Richard Forrest, Daniel Carroll of Duddington and Thomas Munroe.
3 Intelligencer, Nov. 17, 1800.
4 Memories of the Administrations of Washington and Jchn Adams,
Vol. 11, p. 456. Letter to Mrs. Wolcott dated Dec. 4, 1800.
5 Intelligencer, Nov. 21, 1800.
* Annals of Congress. 6th Cong., p. 787.
7 Intelligencer, Nov. 19, 1800.
376 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
President Adams came to the city on the first of November
and went at once to the partially finished president’s house,
which has been the home of all his successors.'’ On the 16th
of November Mrs. Adams reached the capital city and her
impressions of the place and the condition of the president’s
house as recorded in a letter to her daughter, Mrs. Smith,
dated five days later are not only interesting but the principal
contemporary account. She gave expression to an opinion
that was held by others that the grand scale of the house was
not “very well proportioned to the President’s salary.” ?
There were no bells in the house, a great scarcity of fire-wood,
not a single apartment finished, and the unfinished East Room
was used to hang the family washing. To add to this picture
of rawness and incompleteness, Mrs. Adams might have
learned from a Philadelphia paper before she reached her desti-
nation that the president had an attack of chills and fever.
This report, which was reprinted in a Baltimore paper, was
promptly denied in the Centinel of Lnberty or Museum, to use
the new name of that journal.?
The incomplete condition of the president’s house was
apparently due to the lack of money rather than inefficiency
in the direction of affairs. It was not until the opening
of the building season in the spring of 1800 the plastering
of the interior was begun.* Only a part of the house was
plastered at that time and as late as the year 1803 “the
walls of some of the bed chambers, the great room at the
1 Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 4, 1800. ‘‘The President, with his secre-
tary, Mr. Shaw, passed by in his chariot and four, no retinue, only one
servant on horseback,’’ writes Mrs. Thornton in her diary, Nov. 1.
2 Letters of Mrs. Adams, pp. 432-435.
3 Nov. 18, 1800. It is apparent this type of miasmatic disorder
was quite common in the city from the earliest period. Mrs. Samuel
Harrison Smith, after two years of residence, writes that habit has so
reconciled her to attacks of this kind that she continued to go about
as usual ‘‘with the ague, sometimes with the feveron me. I know that
nothing will keep off the fit and may as well have it in one place as
another.” First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 33.
4 Centinel of Liberty, Feb. 18,1800. Advertisement of the contractor
for plasterers to begin work at the president’s house, March 1, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 377
east end of the house and of the principal stairs were still
naked.” ?
The attention of the commissioners had been called by the
secretary of the president early in November to the lack of
bells in the house, and he was informed that this defect would
be remedied in the course of a few days. But it was not until
Mr. Adams’s successor came to the house in the following March
that they were supplied.”
The grounds about the house were in a still more unfinished
state. The commissioners had been asked by Secretary of
the Navy Stoddert, the latter part of January, 1800, to lay outa
garden and provide the necessary out houses, but owing to
lack of funds these improvements were not made.®
Although the 17th of November was the date fixed upon
for the meeting of congress in the new city, when that
day arrived a quorum of neither house was present. On
the next day the house had a quorum, but the senate did
not have such a quota until the 21st. The following day
the president met both houses in the senate chamber and read
his message.‘
The first assemblage of the representatives of the nation in
the new city was in a dignified setting. The north wing of the
capitol was the only portion of the proposed structure then
erected, as only the foundations for the dome or central section
were built, while the walls of the south wing were but a few feet
above the ground. The exterior walls of the north wing were
1B. H. Latrobe’s report in report of committee to ascertain the ex-
penditures on the public buildings in the city of Washington, Dec 21,
1808.
2 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Nov. 9, 1800, and March 12, 1801.
3 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, p. 101. As late as March 20, she notes
“After breakfast we walked with Dr. T. to the ground behind the
President’s House which he is going to have enclosed and laid out for a
garden. Itis at present in great confusion, having on it old brick kilns,
pits to contain water used by the brick makers, rubbish, etc. The
Commissioners have agreed to have a few hands employed on this.”
4 he house had 106 members and the senate 32, and of the latter
nineteen were Federal and thirteen Republican. There were fifty-
four Federals and fifty-two Republicans in the house.
378 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
built of sandstone except the south side, where temporary walls
of brick and some part of the walls of the central section served
as a protection from the weather. As can be seen to-day, the
design expressed in simple lines and restrained detail furnished
a pleasing type of the Italian Renaissance. The floor of the
senate room was at that time on a level with the basement
floor of the building and the ceiling extended through two
stories. A colonnade of wooden pillars covered with lath
and plaster rested upon a range of arches cased in wood. The
entablature of plaster was richly decorated. The gallery was
behind the colonnade. On the walls hung the portraits of
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette presented to the continental
congress in 1784 by the king.!
The entrance to the chamber of the house was on the
next floor. The room occupied the space on the west front
of the building with the ceiling through the height of two
floors.”
As might be expected, the president in his message referred to
the removal of the seat of government to the new location and
offered his congratulations to “the people of the United States
on the assembling of Congress at the permanent seat of their
government, and I congratulate you, gentlemen, on the prospect
of a residence not to be changed.” * He also reminded his
hearers that it was for them “to consider whether the local
powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitu-
tion in the Congress of the United States shall be immediately
exercised.”
“Tf in your opinion,” he added, “this important trust ought
now to be exercised, you cannot fail, while performing it, to take
into view the future probable situation of the territory, for the
happiness of which you are about to provide. You will con-
sider it as the Capital of a great nation advancing with un-
1 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, p. 214, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 10.
2 Description by B. H. Latrobe, Intelligencer, March 17, 1812. In
History of the United States Capitol, p. 27, a drawing of the exterior
of the north wing as it then appeared is given, reproduced from plans
and other data, as well as ground plans of the several stories.
3 Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., p. 723.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 379
exampled rapidity in arts, in commerce, in wealth and in
population, and in possessing within itself those energies and
resources, which if not thrown away, will secure to it a long
course of prosperity and self-government.”
“Usage required,” wrote a contemporary and a member of
the House, “that the answer should be presented in a personal
attendance of the whole House at the presidential mansion.
But how could this be done? The only access was by a road
long and circuitous to avoid the swamp already mentioned
[on line of Pennsylvania Avenue] and the mud very deep. For-
tunately a recruit of hackney coaches from Baltimore, by their
seasonable arrival, enabled us to proceed in fine style, pre-
ceded by the sergeant-at-arms with the mace, on horseback.” !
At the next session of congress a new “usage” was estab-
lished by Jefferson, who sent his message to congress by his
secretary, which continued to be the practice up to the
administration of Woodrow Wilson. Jefferson, in a letter
to the senate explaining the reason for this change, said that
“the circumstance under which we find ourselves at this place
rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore practiced ete.’ ?
What was of still more consequence at that period it was
also a custom established by the Federalists.
The vice-president, Mr. Jefferson, did not arrive in the city
until the 27th of November.? He had rooms in the boarding
house of Conrad and McMunn, who leased the house occupied
by Thomas Law at the northwest corner of New Jersey Avenue
and C Street, S. E.4 The adjoining house, also owned by
Law, was included in the lease and was designed for the accom-
modation of travellers and the usual patrons of a tavern.
The corner house was occupied by members of congress.
Jefferson, in addition to a bedroom enjoyed the distinction un-
usual in the then extent of accommodations in the city of hav-
1 Correspondence and Miscellanies of John Cotton Smith, p. 208.
2 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., lst Sess. 1801-1802, p. 11.
3 Intelligencer, Nov. 28, 1800.
4'The same, Nov. 24, 1800. Mrs. Smith states in her reminiscences
that Mr. Law in giving up his house removed to a dwelling on Greenleaf
Point.
380 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ing a parlor or reception room. But he ate at the common
table with the other occupants of the house.!
Across the Avenue at the northeast corner of New Jersey
Avenue and C Street were two houses built by Thomas Law and
leased by Robert W. Peacock, and where another “Congressional
mess,” as these parties of fellow-boarders were termed, found
accommodations. Thespeaker of the house, Theodore Sedgwick
of Massachusetts, belonged to this mess, and in recognition of
the dignity of his office was allowed a room by himself. But
the rest of the members were obliged to room in pairs. Sepa-
rate beds, however, were provided, and as the rooms were
spacious and the table good, living under such conditions ap-
peared not disagreeable.”
Stelle’s Tavern and that of Tunnicliff’s near the capitol
building also provided shelter for members. It is also probable
that some of the members found quarters at the Washington
Hotel kept by William Lovell on Pennsylvania Avenue near
15th, and also at the house of William Rhodes, the northeast
corner of 15th and F streets.
Another opportunity for the newcomers to find food and
lodging was offered by William O’Neal, whose business in that
line in later years developed into the Franklin House on the
north side of I Street, between 20th and 21st. At that time
Mr. O’Neal had accommodations for “three or four gentlemen
during the session of Congress.” He was then in the same
location and in what was then called the “Three Buildings.” *
The discomforts of living in “a new settlement,” especially
one scattered over such an area as was included within the
bounds of Washington, were no doubt unpleasantly in evidence
1 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 12. Reminiscences
of Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith. The number of occupants is given
as thirty.
2 Correspondence and Miscellanies of John Cotton Smith, p. 208.
The miscellanies in which these details appeared consist of recollections
and not contemporary accounts. Also Intelligencer, Oct. 31, 1806.
Mr. Smith also notes the lodgings in Georgetown were of a superior
order and in that place he states most of the southern members made
their homes.
3 Intelligencer, Dec. 8, 1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 381
during these early months, although the records left of such
experiences by the men and women who passed through them
are neither numerous nor extended. It may have been, as noted
by Mr. Woodward in speaking of the coming of the government
to the new city, that “it came agitated by political contest.
It forgot its inconvenience and privation in the ardor of
triumph.” !
The variety and interest in life was enjoyed which is always
to be found when intelligent men and women are living in the
same locality. The mornings were devoted to visiting, and
owing to the distances carriages were commonly kept.”
The dinner hour was two o’clock in the afternoon, at which
time the business in the government departments apparently
ended for the day. Sometimes invitations were extended to
a larger company to come in after the dinner for tea, which was
served about six o’clock. On the days when the dancing as-
semblies were held, the guests were expected at half after five-
o'clock. In the fall of 1800 there were two of these social
organizations formed of those who subscribed. One was held
at Stelle’s Tavern and the other at Tunnicliff’s.* The presi-
1 Considerations on the Government of the Territory of Columbia
No. 8, p. 21.
2 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 45. See also Mrs.
Thornton’s Diary. Mrs. Smith (page 2) recounts the experience of one
morning. She left her house at New Jersey Avenue and E Street, S. HE.
one morning in November, 1800, in company with Mr. Smith to eall on
Captain Thomas Tingey and Mrs. Tingey, who lived in a two-story frame
house at the northwest corner of 11th and G streets, S. E. (Centinel
of Liberty, April 6, 1801.) Between the two houses, she states, extended
‘*a, plain of near half a mile.’’ They sat with Mrs. Tingey for more than
an hour, Captain Tingey not being home, and then walked a mile to the
home of Thomas Law on Greenleaf’s Point, where they stayed for dinner.
The company was increased at the meal by ‘‘four or five gentlemen
who had accidentally come in. Soon after Captain Tingey’s family
joined us.’”” Thomas Peter and Lawrence Lewis, the brothers-in-law of
Mrs. Law, joined the party.
3 Statements of government employees in depositions relative to the
fires in the war and treasury departments. American State Papers,
Miscellaneous, Vol. 1, p. 247.
4 Intelligencer, Nov. 21, 1800, and Washington Federalist, Oct. 25,
1800. At one of these gatherings it was stated one hundred ladies and
gentlemen were present.
382 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
dent’s house early became a social centre, and before Mrs.
Adams arrived Mr. Adams held what was called a levee.
On Sunday those inclined to attend church could go to Christ
Church on New Jersey Avenue, which Mrs. Samuel Harrison
Smith, who lived a few blocks away, recalled as a small frame
building that had been a tobacco house, purchased from Daniel
Carroll.2. At this church theannual observance of St. John’s Day
by Federal Lodge No. 15 was held.’ It was probably realized
that the situation of Christ Church was rather remote from
what rapidly became the centre of the new city, and so com-
mencing in May, 1801, services were held by the rector, Rev.
A. T. McCormick, each Sabbath afternoon at four o’clock “at
the new war office”’ in the corridor.‘
St. Patrick’s Catholic Church on F Street, between 9th and
10th streets, and St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church on the
square just to the west, both frame structures, had their doors
open on the first day of the week.°
Beginning the first Sunday in November, morning and after-
noon services were held in the hall or corridor of the treasury
office, conducted by ministers appointed by the Presbytery
of Philadelphia of the Associate Reformed Synod of the United
States. The expense was met by subscriptions from those
interested.®
Another medium of intercourse was the military companies
1 Mrs. Thornton’s Diary, pp. 210 and 219. Three days after Mrs.
Thornton called Mrs. Adams returned it in person, p. 214.
2 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 13.
3 In the notice of this event in the Centinel of Liberty, June 13, 1800,
the lodge room is mentioned as being ‘‘at Brother Frost’s South Cap-
ital Street,” while a similar notice in the National Intelligencer of Dec. 8,
1800, locates the lodge room ‘‘in the dwelling house of Mr. Coningham
in the New Jersey Avenue.”’
4 Intelligencer, May 15, 1801.
5 During the summer of 1800 Rev. Michael Arthur of England
announced his purpose of starting a school in the Presbyterian Church.
Centinel of Liberty, June 20, 1800, while through the same medium on
Oct. 31, 1800, it was stated that Rev. David Wiley was in charge of the
Columbian Academy in Georgetown.
8 Washington Federalist, Oct. 18, 1800. The Museum, Nov. 18,
1800.
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 383
organized under the laws of Maryland and in accordance with
the United States law of May 8, 1792, providing for a uniform
militia in the various states. While the state authorities or-
ganized the militia, the arms were largely supplied by the gen-
eral government. The organization as outlined in the United
States law was divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and
companies, each brigade consisting of four regiments, each
regiment of two battalions, each battalion of five companies
and each company of sixty-four privates.
All free, able-bodied white male citizens between the ages of
eighteen and forty-five, except public employees, ferry keepers
and others who were placed in the exempt class were subject
to service. It was the duty of the commanding officer of each
company to enroll all citizens liable to military duty. There
were several companies in the city in the spring of 1800, but as
yet the city had not been laid off in districts, and in conse-
quence of lack of specified areas from which the companies
were drawn, some of the citizens were enrolled in more than
one company.!
About the middle of November, 1800, the city was supplied
with what in those days was a centre for the intellectual life
of the place, namely, a book store. At that time, Rapine, Con-
rad and Company of Philadelphia opened such a place at the
southeast corner of New Jersey Avenue and B Street, S. E.
As usual with booksellers of that period, a printing office formed
a part of the establishment, and the name of this firm appears
on some of the earliest Washington imprints. It was known
as the Washington Book Store.?. An advertisement appeared
in the Intelligencer of Jan. 7, 1801, announcing several publi-
cations. One was the Washington Repository for the year
1801, “published this day.’’ From the table of contents as
1 Centinel of Liberty, May 13, 1800. Notice of Clotworthy Stephen-
son, captain of the Grenadiers. A notice in the same paper of Nov. 18,
1800, of a meeting of the officers of the 14th Regiment of the militia of
Maryland to be held at Stelle’s Tavern shows that the city at that
time was the centre of a force that, if the organization was up to the
requirements of the law, represented an enrollment of 640 men.
2 The same, Noy. 14, 1800. Jntelligencer, Nov. 17, 1800.
384 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
given in this advertisement and which furnishes the only
information now available, as no copy is known to be in exist-
ence, this publication combined the features of an almanac
and also a guide to the city as far as a list of members of congress
and the government employees is concerned — the first of the
sort of which there is any record.
On Saturday evening, Nov. 8, 1800, a fire that came from a
defective chimney in the house of Jonathan Jackson on the
south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, a short distance east of 22d
Street, destroyed the adjoining house occupied by the war office.
The loss was practically a complete one, as but few of the public
records were saved. A fire engine that was kept in the corridors
of the treasury office was hurried to the scene, but without
avail. The body of Mr. Jackson, who had died that day, was
taken from his residence to a place of safety.
The defective method of building chimneys, leaving the floor
joists exposed to the heat of the fire, was also followed in the
treasury office, where a fire from the same cause broke out in
the evening of Jan. 20, 1801. The flames, however, were con-
fined to the room occupied by the auditor, and as they were
quickly gotten under control, there was but small loss.?
Owing to the political change that had taken place in the in-
terval between the two fires, the rancor of feeling on the part of
the victorious Republicans undoubtedly inspired an article in
the Cabinet which charged that these fires were a part of a
scheme of the Federalists to destroy the public records and
thus get out of the way the evidences of misgovernment and
misappropriation of funds which would be brought to light
when the new administration took charge. It was specially
noted that Oliver Wolcott, whose resignation as secretary of
the treasury had taken effect on the last day of December, was
at the treasury office while the fire was in progress and was
1 Intelligencer, Nov. 10 and 12, 1800. Centinel of Liberty, Nov. 11,
1800.
2 Report of House Committee, 2d Sess., No. 146, Feb. 28, 1801.
American State Papers, Miscela., Vol. 1, p. 247. In the account of the
Treasury fire in the Museum, Jan. 21, 1801, it is stated, ‘‘The President
of the United States was observed in the ranks for conveying water.”
AT TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT 385
seen superintending the carting away of boxes removed from
the building.
In consequence of these charges a committee of the house
investigated the causes of both fires, reached the conclusion
that they were accidental, and furthermore that Mr. Wolcott
had only taken away boxes containing papers which were his
own property.
However, Joseph Hodgson, the owner of the house leased
to the war office, brought suit for damages against Samuel
Dexter, at the time of the fire secretary of war, but who had
been transferred subsequently to the treasury office in Mr.
Wolcott’s place. The case was lost in the District circuit
court, and on an appeal to the United States Supreme Court
was decided against the plaintiff.
Mr. Wolcott was summoned as a witness in the District
court, and he stated that the entire action was inspired from
political motives.’
One of the results of the loss of the public records by the
burning of the war office is the impossibility of determining
with any definiteness the early history of the assignment of the
regular army for duty at the seat of government. In the lack
of official data a notice signed by George Peter and dated Bar-
racks, Georgetown, Noy. 11, 1800, offering a reward for a de-
serter in full artillery uniform indicates a military post there
at that time.2 A barracks was built at Greenleaf Point, the
public reservation no doubt originally intended as a place of
military occupation, but there is no means of determining the
time. The building designed by George Hadfield for use as
an arsenal in the year 1803 was erected “near the barracks,
Greenleaf Point” in the year 1805.4
1 Cireuit Court Reports, Cranch 1, p. 109, December term, 1802.
Reports Supreme Court United States, Cranch 1, p. 343.
2 Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams,
Vol. 2, p. 469. ;
3 Washington Federalist, Nov. 24, 1800.
4 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 179. In the
same volume, p. 174, in a list of military posts in the year 1803-1804 is
‘Washington City, Columbia’’ where the force was reported to consist
of 31, of which 21 were privates and six musicians.
voL. I—2c
386 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The army was not in faver with the Republicans, and when
congress enacted a law to discharge the officers and men of the
additional army to take effect June 15, 1800, that day was
celebrated in various parts of the country by republican festi-
vals. One celebration of the sort was held in Alexandria,
where toasts were drunk to the Tree of Liberty, the fifteenth
of June, and to the hope that every nation might soon be freed
from supporting that engine of despotism, a standing army.!
1 Quoted in MeMaster’s History of the People of the United States,
Vol. 11, p. 483, from the Aurora, June 23, 1800.
CHAPTER XV
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM
WHEN and how was the power of exclusive legislation granted
by the constitution to congress over the ten mile square
which had become the seat of government to be exercised ?
Was it to be immediately exercised, as President Adams in
his message at the first session of that body in the new territory
had declared it was for them to consider? Did the actual
removal of the government to the new location amount to an
assumption, or was it necessary that congress should “other-
wise by law provide” before the operation of the laws of the
states should cease? But if congress should assume its con-
stitutional powers, what provision could be made to secure the
political rights of the residents of the District ?
This was the problem that came before congress at an early
day. For the first time this clause of the constitution, so novel
in its nature, was fairly up for consideration and, what was
more, for a practical interpretation. What was to be done
about it? There is but slight indication that it had up to this
time been given much attention. At the previous session a com-
mittee of which General Henry Lee was chairman had been
appointed to draw up rules and regulations respecting the Dis-
trict of Columbia, but no further action is recorded.
Mr. Woodward asserted in his essay No. 5, on the government
of the territory of the District, that General Lee proposed pre-
paring a code of laws for the District which is the earliest refer-
ence to a subject that was agitated for many years. There is
no record of any effort made to carry out such a purpose at
this period. During the summer a brief communication ap-
peared in the Georgetown newspaper, in which the writer pro-
pounded some general inquiries relating to the new status of
the District.
1 Centinel of Liberty, July 29, 1800.
387
388 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
But no response was elicited, and there was no further refer-
ence to the subject. Then came the president’s message,
and the portion relating to the District was referred in both
houses to committees. In less than two weeks reports were
made.
The senate committee merely announced an opinion that
the jurisdiction in the District had become vested exclusively
in congress to the exclusion of that of the states.1 The house
committee was of the same mind on that phase of the situa-
tion, but went farther and proposed to adopt for the territory the
entire body of laws of the two states, in force on the first Mon-
day in December, 1800. The executive and judicial officers of
the two states were to be continued in office, subject to removal
by the president, who thereafter was to appoint such officers.
The powers of the corporations of Georgetown and of Alexan-
dria as well as any body corporate in the District were to be
continued unimpaired.”
What the effect of the house measure would be, was pointed
out in a newspaper communication signed “a citizen of Colum-
bia.” * One result, the writer asserted, would be to disenfran-
chise the people of the District and to doom them to political
slavery. He suggested that congress be petitioned to forbear
legislation on this subject until “provision is made for some
adequate form of Government to preserve the political rights
which every American holds dear.”’
On the same date the first of four essays entitled Considera-
tions on the Government of the District of Columbia, signed
Epaminondas, appeared in the National Intelligencer.4 The
author was Augustus B. Woodward, a lawyer, a man of wide
reading, a student of the classics and with a mind of a specula-
tive cast. As early as 1795, his residence is given as Rock-
1 Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., p. 731.
2 The same, 6th Cong., p. 825.
3 The Museum, Georgetown, Dec 24, 1800.
4 Hssay No. 1 was printed in the issue of Dec. 24, 1800; No. 2,
Dec. 26; No. 3, Dec. 29; and No. 4, Dee. 31. On Jan. 31, 1801, these
essays were published in pamphlet form with the imprint Washington,
Samuel Harrison Smith, New Jersey Avenue, near the capitol, 1801.
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 389
bridge, Va. About that time he made the acquaintance
of Thomas Jefferson, with whom he maintained a friendship
which continued through the latter’s life. He became a resi-
dent of Alexandria in 1797 and also the purchaser of some
lots in the federal city where he established his residence in
the year 1800.1. Mr. Woodward was strongly of the opinion
that it would be better to make no change at all in the political
situation of the District than to adopt the plan proposed by
the house committee, which has “cut the Gordian knot of all
difficulties by a lethargic apathy and a refusal to investigate
anything.” He believed a permanent system of government
should be devised, and proceeded to sketch such a system which
in the first place would be in harmony with “an original prin-
ciple of republicanism,” to give to “‘ all those who are governed
by laws, the right to participate in the formation of them.”
To accomplish this, he pointed out, an amendment to the
constitution would be required, and he urged that the District
be given representation in both houses of congress, and also
a voice in the selection of president and vice-president. He
referred to those who advocate the District remaining a part
of the adjoining states as probably “not aware of the incon-
veniences to which this distracted state must reduce its inhabit-
ants.” After having adjusted the District in the federal
system, the author urged the adoption of a territorial form of
government for the conduct of local affairs. There was to be
a legislature composed of two houses elected by white male
citizens who were residents, a governor appointed by the presi-
dent, having the veto power, while congress was to retain the
right to repeal any law made by the local body or to make any
regulation respecting the territory. Contrary to the practice
of the day, suffrage without the usual property qualification
or indeed any restriction except that of citizenship in the United
States and residence in the District was to be enjoyed by its
citizens.”
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV, p. 114.
2 Professor MeMaster points out in his account in the fifth volume of
the History of the People of the United States, page 379, of the move-
390 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The salary of the governor was to be paid by the United
States, while the cost of the legislature was to be a charge on the
local revenues. Mr. Woodward regarded the District as possess-
ing resources adequate as any other part of the United States,
and he considered that “every inhabitant ought to pride him-
self in this pecuniary independence and to discourage a con-
stant application to congress for donations and charities which
cannot fail in the end to make every state in the Union our
enemy.” He deprecated the failure of the committee in its
report to make any reference to the financial relations of the
general government and the District.
The author worked out his scheme of a government for the
District to even the detail of suggesting that buildings for its
home be erected on the reservation known as Town House
Square and now Garfield Park on New Jersey Avenue to the
south of the capitol.
On the 31st of December, 1800, the day when the final instal-
ment of Mr. Woodward’s essay appeared in the Intelligencer,
the house entered upon the consideration of the report of the
committee on the District government. As the first District
day in the national legislature, the date is a notable one, but
that cannot be said of the discussion which turned mainly on
the question, the opinions varying as Federalist or Republican
spoke, as to whether on the date named by the committee
congress had or had not assumed in full its constitutional
powers over the District. There were those who were opposed
to assumption at this time because of the effect of such a course
upon the political rights of the citizens, while on the other
hand it was maintained that congress had no choice, but must
make use of this power, as it was exclusive and differed in that
ment to expand the restricted franchise of the first state constitutions,
that Kentucky and Vermont were the only states up to 1800 where man-
hood suffrage prevailed. In 1810 Maryland abolished the property
qualification and gave suffrage to every free white male. The discus-
sion of the franchise feature of the District government both in and out
of Congress reflects the state of opinion of the day as it was slowly
crystallizing. But it was not until nearly the middle of the century
that manhood suffrage became general in the states.
. DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 391
respect from other powers vested in congress by the con-
stitution.
As the people of the District had lived happily for the past
ten years under the state governments, there was no need, it
was urged, for congress to step in. If, however, congress went
forward and exercised its powers, then the citizens of the Dis-
trict would become that most pitiable object, taxed without
representation. While it is true, the advocates of assumption
admitted, that the people of the District have lived happily
for the past ten years under the state governments, yet the
provision of the constitution on this subject had not been made
with this view. It was made to bestow dignity and impor-
tance on the government.! At the same time, the opinion was
expressed that something more than “an abstract proposition,”
as one of the speakers labelled the committee report, was needed
at this time, and owing apparently to a general desire for some
system of government, the report was recommitted and two
members added to the committee.”
A week after the house had for the time disposed of the dis-
trict government matter, the senate took similar action on the
report of a committee of that body and recommitted it for
further consideration and report. The first month of the new
year had nearly ended before the subject was again taken up in
either house, but during the three or four weeks that elapsed, the
discussion was continued in public meeting and in the columns
of newspapers as well as through the more usual medium of
the day —the pamphlet. First there came a call for a public
meeting of the citizens of Alexandria.? “The passive indiffer-
ence which prevails on this important subject,” the author of
the communication suggesting a meeting, exclaimed, ‘‘ would
do honor to the subjects of a Turkish bashaw, but can reflect
1 Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., p. 873.
2 “The house by a large majority recommitted the bill, thereby
expressing an opinion that an assumption by the general government
might or might not be made, and that until actually made the laws of
Virginia and Maryland remained in foree.’’ A history of the last
session of Congress, Intelligencer, April 17, 1801.
3 Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer, Jan. 6, 1801.
392 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
no credit on the American character or that of the citizens of
Alexandria.’’ He was of the opinion that if those who are as
deeply interested as the citizens of the District would give
some aid that “it would no doubt afford satisfaction to our rul-
ers.” He then sketched in outline what he regarded as the
more important aspects of the subject, as to whether a total
separation ought to be made of the District and the two states
or whether the states ought to retain a modified jurisdiction,
and if so, the extent and character of such modification. In the
event a total separation between the District and the two states
is decided upon, he asked, how can the citizens of the District
retain rights as citizens of the United States? Then also what
ought to be the local government provided and what the judi-
cial plan ?
A public meeting was held in Alexandria two weeks later,
when resolutions were presented, but the discussion was post-
poned to a meeting arranged for a future day in the hope there
would be present a larger representation of the citizens.1
In the meantime those present who had chosen Elisha C.
Dick, chairman, and Henry Moore, secretary, directed the reso-
lution to be published for the consideration of the citizens. In
this measure it is declared that the power of exclusive legis-
lation in the District vested in congress is “novel in the science
of government, it is momentous to those whose lives, liberty
and property are implicated in the issue. ... We believe
that Congress may exercise a legitimate jurisdiction over the
District to any extent, whether partial or general, simultane-
ous or exclusive accordingly as expedience or necessity may dic-
tate.’ The consequence of complete assumption was pointed
out. “We shall then be deprived of all weight in the legislative
councils of the nation; we can possess no share in the choice
of our chief magistrate. ... We shall then be completely
disenfranchised in respect to the national government while
we retain no security for participating in the formation even of
the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected.
We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we
1 Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 1801. Date line Alexandria, Jan. 14th.
_ DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 393
pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain
of being taxed without representation.” In conclusion con-
gress is asked “to postpone the exercise of their powers to their
full extent, till imperious circumstances shall require, but
should Congress not think fit to grant this request, we earnestly
entreat them to delay the full assumption till they shall have
devised and matured a competent system of government and
published it for the consideration of those who are naturally
interested.”
It is probable this is the memorial referred to in the proceed-
ings of the house of Feb. 5, 1801, as having been presented.
But the views set forth in this paper could not be claimed as
those of all the people of Alexandria, for on the 26th of the pre-
ceding month a memorial had been received in the house signed
by freeholders and inhabitants of Alexandria, praying the
national legislature to establish in the District a system of law
and government, which would be to assume jurisdiction, while
a few days later a request of similar import was received from
freeholders and inhabitants of Washington.
In the same vein were the resolutions that appeared in a news-
paper communication signed Constantius.!. The writer stated
the resolutions were proposed for the consideration of the in-
habitants of Georgetown, but there is no record of any further
action or in fact of any expression of opinion on this subject
from those residing in that section of the District. The author
of the communication declared that it was the interest of the
inhabitants of Georgetown and the country adjacent “to be
separated totally and forever from all legislation and juris-
diction of the state of Maryland from and after the earliest
day Congress passes a law for that purpose.”
It was further declared that by an amendment to the con-
stitution the District ought to be represented in the federal
government and that a government for the District, similar
to that of the United States and of the individual states, ought
to be immediately established, congress retaining a controlling
authority.
1 Georgetown Museum, Jan. 12, 1801.
394 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Another voice was heard.on the current topic. It was that
of the author of a communication in the Intelligencer of Jan.
26, 1801, who, in commenting on the recent fire in the treasury
office, said that this occurrence, following the destruction of the
war office, pointed to the need of establishing in the city a
police, “which may require the citizens to have buckets and
fire engines. ... Of course,” he added “the inhabitants
of the District of Columbia are looking out with solicitous anxi-
ety for the assumption of the jurisdiction by Congress, when
more beneficial regulations will undoubtedly be adopted.”
As is clearly shown by these utterances which now remain
the only sources of information as to the current of public
opinion in the District at that period, sentiment was divided,
opinions varied. No doubt some voices that were raised carried
with them no weight. It was possible for members of congress
to sift evidence then as now, and also they gained knowledge
of what the people wanted from personal intercourse with them.
At least two of the members of the house declared in the course
of the discussion that the citizens of the District wanted con-
gress to assume the jurisdiction.! Again in the debate over
the retrocession resolution five years later one of the speakers
asserted that the files of congress would disclose “petitions
signed by almost every person living within the district,”
favoring the assumption by congress,” which, if exaggerated
in details, gives some notion of the impression left on at least
one person of the public mind in the District on that question.
It may be concluded that the measure would have received a
majority vote of the people.
In the meantime a further contribution to the discussion was
made by the author of a pamphlet that appeared anonymously?
1 Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., p. 992.
* The same, 8th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 975, February, 1805.
* Enquiries into the necessity or expediency of assuming legislation
over the District of Columbia. By a private citizen of the District.
From the Cabinet Office.
The imprint is without date, but Mr. Woodward, in his essay No. 5,
which is dated Jan. 15, 1801, states that since writing the previous num-
ber, which appeared in the Intelligencer, Dec. 31, 1800, he had seen this
_ DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 395
The author, after an elaborate consideration of the question
whether congress was bound to assume direct jurisdiction
over the District, reached the conclusion that in the first place
congress was not bound to assume, because the constitutional
grant of power does not always impose the obligation to exer-
cise that power. In the second place, the acceptance of the
District and the removal of the seat of government did not
amount to such assumption. As to the expediency of the exer-
cise of this power, the writer laid emphasis on the fact that if
such a course is pursued, the people of the District would be
governed without being represented in the government.
The Lee bill was characterized as not only unnecessary but
ruinous in its effects on the District. In the event congress
decided to exercise its powers, the writer urged that a system
of jurisprudence be provided and such arrangements made
as would enable the people of the District te govern themselves.
He claimed another consequence would follow assumption,
namely, an increase of taxes, which the territory, in its present
situation, would be unable to sustain.
While admitting the general conclusions reached by this
writer, Mr. Woodward, in essay No. 5, which was devoted to a
review of the pamphlet, asserted one of two consequences
must result, ‘‘either the provision in the constitution must be
abandoned or attended with insuperable difficulties in the exe-
cution and as at irreconcilable war with every principle of an
American freeman, or a remedy must be provided.”’ !
The remedy Mr. Woodward pointed out was federal repre-
sentation and federal franchise for the citizens of the District
and a competent local government. He spoke with scorn of
an opinion held by some men in the District “that it is well
enough for us to remain unrepresented in any way, as the fed-
eral government is intrusted with absolute sovereignty over
pamphlet, so that it may be inferred the publication was made the
last of the year or early in the following year.
1 Epaminondas on the government of the territory of the District
of Columbia No. 5, being a review of a work on the same subject by a
private citizen, Georgetown. ‘Territory of Columbia, Green and Eng-
lish. 1801.
396 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
us and as we may repose @ confidence that that sovereignty
will never be abused.’’ Such persons, in the opinion of Mr.
Woodward, to obtain the advantages attendant on that situa-
tion, are willing to relinquish their inestimable privileges and
to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. While the tide
of discussion and controversy rose and fell in the District, con-
gress apparently did not come within the range of the agitated
movement.
The members were not obliged to read newspaper communi-
cations and pamphlets about the District situation; only two
memorials had been received, and apparently the citizens had
not become alive to the results in legislation due to personal
acquaintance and personal influence with legislators. At any
rate there is not a solitary reference in the discussions on Dis-
trict affairs during this closing session of the sixth congress
nor during the following session of the seventh congress of a
phase of the relations of the District to congress that was re-
ferred to at the very next session, the third held in the new city,
as a reason for abandoning the entire territory in order to rid
congress of the trouble and annoyance of exercising exclusive
legislation.
Congress had by that time made the discovery, or at least
some of the members, that all people in the District did not
think alike and that there were a good many needs demanding
legislative action. Besides, the affairs of their own districts
or national questions were of more importance and interest
than the local concerns of a constituency that was silent on
election day. It was especially a cause of irritation to be com-
pelled to take the place of arbiter in conflicting local interests.
After some three weeks of further consideration the com-
mittee of the house to which the District government ques-
tion had been referred reported a territorial form of govern-
ment which in the main followed the scheme already elaborated
in the publications of Mr. Woodward. Instead, however, of
establishing manhood suffrage, the right of voting and of hold-
ing office was confined to those who had real property. Pro-
vision was made for courts and for the appointment of sheriffs.
_ DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 397
Unlike the Woodward plan, the house bill placed no qualifica-
tion of residence in the District either upon the persons ap-
pointed by the president as governor or judges of the court,
and this was looked upon by the memorialists of Alexandria
as likely to result in having men placed over them “ holding
no permanent evidence of interest among them, perhaps under
interests opposed to them.’”?! The bill was printed in full in
the Intelligencer of Jan. 30, and in the same issue appeared
the first of two communications signed “Washington,” the
second number being printed in the issue of Feb. 2d. The
writer opposed the legislation proposed by the committee on
the ground that as the mass of real property in Washington
was held but by a few, the voters would be few. As values of
land in the county were less than in the three towns, owners
of real estate were more numerous in the county districts.
The consequence would be that the county would dominate
the legislature. He asserted that jealousy already marked the
relations of the city of Washington and the county. While
the property of the city residents, he added, “is tributary to
the coffers of Prince George County, these coffers are never
open to her wants however imperious.”’
The citizens of Alexandria at a public meeting adopted reso-
lutions that “ the bill lately reported to congress for the govern-
ment of the District is not calculated to produce any good effect
to the people of the District and is an express contradiction to
some of their most important rights.” ”
Objection was made to the proposed restriction of the suf-
frage, and it was stated that what was favored was an unre-
stricted enjoyment of that privilege.
When the District bill was taken up in the house on the 2d
of February, an effort was made to postpone the consideration
of the entire subject, on the ground mainly there was no neces-
1 Intelligencer, Feb. 9, 1801.
2 The same, Feb. 6, 1801. Town meeting held Jan. 30. A com-
mittee consisting of Francis Peyton, Abraham Faw, Archibald McClean,
John Love and Walter Jones, Jr., was appointed to prepare a memorial
to congress which was presented in the house. Printed in full in the
Intelligencer of Feb. 9, 1801.
398 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
sity of congress assuming further jurisdiction over the District
at this time. However, this failing, the attack was directed
against the features of the proposed territorial government,
and the criticism was specially sharp that the people were not
allowed to choose the governor and the judicial officers.
Attention was called to the fact that under the proposed
system of government no citizen of the District would have a
voice in the national government which he helped to support,
“a denial of a natural right.’”’ On the other hand, it was de-
clared the local interests would be better represented in the
proposed legislature than could possibly be the case in similar
bodies of the two states, and their affairs would be more care-
fully considered.
It was declared by one of the speakers, a Maryland repre-
sentative, that the people of the District desired that assump-
tion should take place and that they were satisfied with the
features of the bill.
Owing to the opportunities afforded by their residence at
the seat of government and their acquaintance with the mem-
bers of congress, the speaker asserted, the voices of District
citizens would be heard, even though they might not be repre-
sented in the national body. In the event provision for Dis-
trict representation in the national government should seem
necessary, he added, by changing the constitution a delegate
might be given to the District when the population became
sufficient.
That the people of the District could not be represented in
the general government was admitted by another speaker.
But where was the blame, if any, to attach? Certainly not,
he said, tc the men who made the act of cession, nor to those
who accepted it. It was the men who framed the constitu-
tional provision, that set apart this as a District under national
safeguard and government.
The next day when the consideration of the bill was resumed,
an amendment was adopted extending the franchise privilege
beyond the class of freeholders so as to include housekeepers
with property valued at $100. But on the previous day the
_ DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 399
house had voted down, by a majority of only two votes, a mo-
tion to extend the privilege of voting to persons who are not
freeholders, which would have been unlimited suffrage.1 Two
more days were spent in the discussion of the bill, but the de-
tails of the debate have not been preserved. Then on Feb.
5, after the bill had been amended and reported to the house
from the committee on the whole, a bill was received from the
senate entitled ‘‘an act concerning the District of Columbia,’
and this was the bill which was later on adopted by the house
without change and became a law on the 27th of February,
1801.
In the opinion of the editor of the organ of the Republican
party, the National Intelligencer,? the bill proposed by the
house committee, providing a territorial form of government
for the District, “was perhaps the most extraordinary that the
annals either of federal or state legislation present since the
era of American independence. Under the specious mask of
imitating the Constitution of the United States, it subverted
the pillar of that instrument by limiting the right of suffrage
and of being elected to office to citizens possessed of freehold
property. It placed at the mercy of the executive magistrate,
himself to be appointed by the President, the lives and property
of the citizens by giving to him uncontrolled appointment of
sheriffs. It imparted to the legislative body a continuance in
office calculated to exalt it above all interference. It will not
be surprising that such a bill received the vigorous opposition,
in every stage, of the Republican side of the House, but it is
surprising that its most pernicious provisions should receive
the zealous support of a majority of the House, which demon-
strates the extreme length to which party spirit, united with
power, will go, even to the sacrifice of a vital principle of liberty.
1 Such a policy as to the franchise so radical for that day justifies the
inference that the advocates of unlimited white male suffrage, both in the
house and among the memorialists of the citizens of Alexandria, were
influenced more by the desire to obstruct legislation than to really
bring about such a condition in the District.
2 History of the last session of Congress printed in issue of April 22,
1801, with full abstract of the territorial bill.
400 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
“Notwithstanding the decided and persevering opposition
given to this measure, it seemed likely to survive it, when the
Senate agreed to a bill, which was sent to the House, passed on
different principles and from different motives. This bill
avoided the organization of a legislature, but prescribed the
establishment of a court consisting of three judges to be ap-
pointed by the President and of a board of justices of the peace
to whom the right of taxation and police was confided. To
this system the federal side of the House was compelled, in
despair of obtaining any other, reluctantly to submit, and it
passed into a law.”
The law of Feb. 27, 1801, which was the outcome of the first
consideration given by congress to the affairs of the District,
was without doubt disappointing. It was an unequal meas-
ure. The judicial system wasall that the most extreme Federal-
ist could ask, and was a notable recognition of the District as
more than merely a local concern. But loading on the new
territory the entire mass of the Virginia and Maryland laws
was a makeshift, mischievous in its tendencies, awkward and
at times absurd in its operations, while the provision for a
local government was slight and inadequate. In these two
latter respects the law was supposed to be only temporary, due
to the lack of time in the short session and to the want of con-
sideration, owing to the absorbing phases of the political up-
heaval which had just taken place.
As in all legislative action which shows the cleavage of
strong party spirit, it was a compromise. The ruling party,
the Federalist, then on the eve of giving up the reins of power
which it had held for twelve years, was obliged to abandon in
part at least its purpose of elevating the seat of government
to a position that some, no doubt, hoped would ultimately be
on a par with that of the states of the Union, while the Republi-
can party fell back from the position that congress should
go no further in its assumption of its constitutional power over
the District than that of the law of 1790, and that the legisla-
tive authority of the states should be continued within the
District.
- DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 401
The new law embodied the same principle as the bill first
reported by the house committee. In both instances the exist-
ing laws of Virginia and Maryland were continued in operation
and the further legislative authority of the states within the
District was ended. The direct control of the federal govern-
ment was established by both measures, while the new law di-
vided the territory into two counties separated by the Potomac,
provided a circuit court with all the powers of United States
circuit courts, an orphan court and register of wills for each
county, a marshal, district attorney and justices of the peace.
The clerks of the circuit court were empowered to record
deeds.
The corporate powers of Georgetown and Alexandria were
continued, but the hustings court of Alexandria and the
mayor’s court of Georgetown were abolished and their func-
tions vested in the circuit court. With the exception of the
three circuit court judges whose salaries were directed to be
paid from the United States treasury, as also witness fees in
exact imitation in this as in other particulars of the United
States courts, all the officials created were to depend on fees
for their compensation.
In general it may be said that after providing a court similar
to the circuit courts of the country, congress merely adopted
bodily the governmental machinery of the locality along with
the laws, but placed the power of appointing all officials in the
president of the United States with the advice and consent of
the senate — another recognition of the national character of
the District.}
President Adams was obliged to act promptly, if these appoint-
ments were to be made from the ranks of his own party. He
1 Under the Maryland law the orphans’ court in each county had
three judges selected from the justices of the peace. The court as
constituted by the law of 1801 continued its separate existence until
1870, when its functions were transferred to one of the justices of the
supreme court of the District holding a special term. The code of
laws adopted in 1900 substituted a probate court with jurisdiction over
wills and divorees. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 3. Orphans’ Court and Reg-
ister of Wills. William H. Dennis.
VoL. I—2D
402 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
signed the bill, Friday, Feb. 27, so that only four days, in-
cluding Sunday, remained, before histermexpired. Theday after
he affixed his signature to the act, he sent to the senate the
following nominations: Thomas Johnson of Frederick, Md.,
to be chief judge of the circuit court of the District of Colum-
bia; James Marshall of Alexandria, and William Cranch of
Washington, associate judges; Thomas Swann of Alexandria
to be attorney for the District of Columbia; and James M.
Lingan to be marshal.
The president also named the three judges and the attorney
for the District to be justices of the peace in both counties.1
All these nominations were confirmed the following Tuesday
(March 3), the last day of the session, except ‘“‘the three judges
and attorney to be justices of the peace,” and action on them was
postponed.” Instead, the senate confirmed a list of twenty-
three persons to be justices of the peace for Washington
County and nineteen for Alexandria County which had come
from the president the day (Sunday only intervening) after
he had made the first nominations for those places. It prob-
ably occurred to the president that combining two offices, and
especially of a judicial nature, in one set of officials was not
likely to be productive of happy results. In addition he had
before him an act supplementary to the law of February 27,
which he approved March 3, correcting what was apparently an
oversight in the previous law. For while that measure adopted
for the District the system current in Maryland and Virginia
of justices of the peace as individual magistrates, no provision
was made for a levy court, which in Maryland had a member-
ship of seven appointed by the governor of the state from the
justices of the peace. The later act provided for a board of
commissioners or levy court in each county to be composed
of the justices of the peace of the respective jurisdictions and
with the same powers as possessed by the Maryland levy courts,
thus providing for these minor governmental agencies one set
1 Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, Vol. 1, p. 387.
Washington. Duff Green. 1828.
2 The same.
- DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 403
of laws instead of those of two states.!_ Such a function of the
Maryland county court as the granting of liquor licenses out-
side of the towns was vested in the circuit court of the District,
but the revenue from that source was to be expended for the
benefit of the two counties by the levy court. The appoint-
ment of constables, inspectors of flour, tobacco, highways and
ferries was vested in the circuit court.
The same day the District judicial nominations were con-
firmed — and it was the last day of the life of the congress —
the following additional nominations were also confirmed:
William Hammond Dorsey, judge of the orphans’ court,
Washington County; John Peter, register of wills, Washing-
ton County; John Herbert, judge of the orphans’ court,
Alexandria County ; Cleon Moore, register of wills, Alexandria
County.
It is interesting to note that the Journal of the Executive
Proceedings of the senate shows that after Feb. 24, 1801,
seven working days before the end of the congress, only three
judicial appointments were confirmed in addition to the Dis-
trict appointments. The sixteen judges of the United States
created by the law of Feb. 13, 1801, were confirmed by the
senate by the 20th of February. This lot of appointments
was nicknamed by the Republicans the Duke of Braintree’s
Midnight Judges. It is quite evident, if, as is stated, it was
“almost twelve o’clock [March 3] when these commissions
were signed,” ? that such a congestion was due either to pres-
sure of work at the state department or to demands upon the
president’s time that made it impossible for him to give this
detail attention at an earlier date. As the entire batch of the
District judicial appointments, numbering in all, including the
justices of the peace, forty-nine, were confirmed on the last
1This provision for the levy courts of the two counties did not
affect the powers of the justices of the peace, who continued as magis-
trates to administer in the respective counties the laws of Maryland
and Virginia. Unlike the judges of the circuit court, who also had two
sets of law to administer, the magistrates were limited to the single
jurisdiction of the county in which they were appointed to serve.
2 MecMaster’s History, Vol. 2, p. 532.
404 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
day of the session and the commissions were duly made
out and signed the same day, it would appear that after
all it was the District cases that caused President Adams
to devote the closing hours of his administration to signing
his name.
Early on the morning of March 4, Mr. Adams entered his
carriage and left the city for his home,! while the quiet of that
hour was broken by the thunder of the salute given by the
Washington artillery which ushered in the ceremonies of the
first inauguration of a president in the city of Washington.”
About ten o’clock the chronicler of the day relates, the Alexan-
dria company of riflemen, with the Washington artillery com-
pany, paraded in front of the president elect’s lodgings at
Conrad and McMunn’s boarding house at the northwest corner
of New Jersey Avenue and C Street, S. W. The city “pre-
sented a spectacle of uncommon animation occasioned by the
addition to its usual population of a large body of citizens from
the adjacent districts.” * At twelve o’clock the president elect,
attended by a number of citizens, walked to the capitol, and his
entrance into that building was announced by a volley from the
Washington company of artillery. He came into the senate
chamber attended by the heads of the executive departments
and the marshal of the District of Columbia.‘
After the delivery of the inaugural, the oath of office was
administered and the ceremonies of an eventful day were over.
And so were the strain and stress of the uncertainty of the
factional struggle in the house as to which of the two names
on the Republican ticket should be given the first place. The
contest had held the attention of the country, and that fact as
well as the prospects offered on the change in the administration
served, no doubt, to attract an unusual number of spectators.
“The senate chamber was so crowded,” writes an eye-witness,
“that I believe not another creature could enter. On one side
1 McMaster’s History, Vol. 2, p. 532.
2The Aurora, March 11, 1801.
3 The same.
4 Journal of Executive Proceedings of the Senate, Vol. 1.
- DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 405
of the house the senate sat, the other was resigned by the rep-
resentatives to the ladies.” }
As the throng left the building, printed copies of the address
which they had just heard, were ready for distribution, having
been struck off at the office of the National Intelligencer from a
copy which was furnished the editor that morning by Mr.
Jefferson.2 The president returned to his lodgings, where he
made his home until the 19th of March, when he went to the
president’s house.’
In this interval such of the furniture in the president’s house
as had been brought from Philadelphia, and was worn out,
was replaced with new, and an attempt made to finish the
building. As early as Feb. 23, 1801, the commissioners had
directed the East Room, then being finished, to be cleared of
shavings, but in spite of the additional work, the building was
still in an unfinished state when the new president took pos-
session. The principal stairway had not been built, and the
East Room and some of the rooms upstairs were not plastered.
He began at once to fulfil the social duties of the place, although
he was alone, as his daughters did not spend much time in
Washington until the following season. Each day he had a
company at dinner which was limited to twelve.‘
But the political opponents of the new administration did
not neglect the very obvious opportunity thus afforded of con-
veying the impression that the great tribune of the common
people was living in a species of regal splendor. A writer of a
satirical turn of mind enumerated the blessings that would
flow from the administration of Mr. Jefferson, due to the saving
of public money.°
1The First Forty Years of Washington Society. Letter of Mrs.
Samuel Harrison Smith, p. 26.
2 The same.
3 National Intelligencer, March 20, 1801.
4 Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 28. Mrs. Samuel Harrison
Smith in a letter dated May 26, 1801, a couple of months after Mr.
Jefferson moved to the president’s house, stated she dined there and
that he had company every day.
5 Alexandria Advertiser, May 25, 1801. Reprinted from the Wash-
ington Federalist.
406 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
As a case in point, he states that “the great stone house, big
enough for two emperors, one pope and the grand lama in the
bargain,” is to be the home also of Mr. Madison, the secretary
of state, and Mr. Gallatin, the secretary of the treasury. Where
the people are to be benefited by this arrangement, the writer
was careful to point out, is that both will pay rent to the presi-
dent, who will put the money into the treasury. “That is
republican and economical.” 1 By the following fall Mr. Madi-
son had taken the house on the site of 1333-1335 F Street,
which he occupied until he was elected president.? Henry
Dearborn, the secretary of war, occupied one of the houses
near the capitol erected by General Washington.*? When
the Fourth of July came around, the president’s house was
the centre of the celebration of the day, and the occasion was
the more notable as it was the first public reception given
in that historic structure. The company came together at
twelve o’clock and were received by the president. In the
dining room were four large sideboards, where the visitors that
numbered about one hundred were invited to help themselves
to the cake of various kinds and the wine and punch supplied
in profusion. In an adjoining room the marine band played
patriotic airs, having accompanied the marine corps under the
command of Colonel Burrows, the commandant, to the presi-
dent’s house.‘
Other features of the celebration of the day was the firing of a
salute by the Washington Light Artillery Company, after which
1 This rather clever take-off of the democracy of the new adminis-
tration was no doubt suggested by the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Madison
lived for a time at the president’s house, as stated by Mrs. Smith in
a letter dated May 26, 1801 (First Forty Years of Washington Society,
p. 28). In the same letter Mrs. Smith also states that the Madisons
had taken a house “‘three miles distant from us.’’ This had reference
to a house on the north side of M Street a short distance west of Wis-
consin Avenue. Here they had in the spring of 1801 as neighbors the
secretary of the treasury, Mr. Gallatin, and Mrs. Gallatin. The latter
had moved there from Capitol Hill.
2 Liber G, folio 415. Recorder of Deeds office.
3 Intelligencer, Dec. 23, 1801.
4 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 30.
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 407
the soldiers had dinner “at the spring of Rock Creek.”1 A
dinner attended by the civil and military officers of the govern-
ment and citizens was given at McMunn and Conrad’s, and as
Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith states she was present, it is evi-
dent that both sexes participated in that festivity.
Announcement was made that a discourse appropriate to the
occasion would be delivered in the chamber of the house of
representatives by Rev. David Austin.?, The public was also
informed that a collection would be taken for the benefit of
the religious services being held at the hotel in an apartment
styled “Lady Washington’s Chappel, at which place instruc-
tions will be given of the progress of national operations as
sketched down in Holy Writ.” The chapel was dedicated
some ten days later,? but as there is no further reference to this
new church, which probably occupied the room in the Great
Hotel that had been used the previous year by the theatre
company, it may be concluded the Rev. Mr. Austin and his
views on the immediate second coming of Christ did not suc-
ceed in gaining a following in the city of Washington. In the
previous fall he had been a candidate for one of the positions
of chaplain of congress, and is referred to in a satirical rhymed
effusion that appeared anonymously the following fall.4 Later
on Mr. Austin gave notice that subscriptions would be received
“for the publication of two discourses delivered at the Treas-
ury Office,” but as the sermons were not printed, it is evident
that his appeal failed to elicit an adequate response. How-
ever, probably the substance of his proposed publication
eventually got into print. Mr. Austin also endeavored during
1 Museum, July 8, 1801. 2 Intelligencer, June 29, 1801.
3 Alerandria Advertiser, July 14, 1801. An outline of the sermon
delivered on this oceasion is printed. There are three main heads in
the discourse, the first having seven divisions, the second six and the
third, five.
41 The Clerical Candidates, a poem. Washington City, Nov. 14,
1801. 32 pp., 8°. As it was advertised to be for sale at the Museum
office, it may be concluded that it was a product of that press. Museum,
Dee. 2, 1801.
’ The National Barley Cake or the Rock of Offense, etc., by David
Austin, A.M., Washington, District of Columbia. Way and Groff,
408 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
his brief stay in the city to induce congress to erect a structure
which could be used by all denominations for public worship,
but beyond sending a petition to the national legislature, nothing
further was done.!. While discourses on the immediate second
coming of Christ were evidently not in demand in the Dis-
trict, the same could not be said of a discussion or rather a
defence of infant baptism. For in a couple of months after an
advertisement appeared inviting subscriptions for “a series of
letters’ on that subject “addressed to Rev. Adam Freeman,
a minister of the Baptist church, by Rev. Stephen Bloomer
Balch, A.M., pastor of the Presbyterian church, Georgetown,”
the publication appeared.’
At that period the Baptist denomination was not represented
in the District by an organized church. It is apparent that
Rev. Mr. Freeman, who had drawn the controversial fire of
Dr. Balch, had been preaching in this locality, and it is also ap-
parent that his work was continued. In the Museum of
July 1, 1801, after the announcement of Dr. Balch, was a notice
that “Rev. Mr. Richards of the Baptist church of Baltimore
will preach in the Treasury Office next Sunday.”
Seven months later (March 7, 1802), “The Baptist church of
Washington City”’ was organized, which came to be known later
as the First Baptist Church, and which name it bears to this
day.’
North E Street, Jan. 14, a.p. 1802. Issues of the District of Colum-
bia Press in 1800-1802, p. 58. A. P. C. Griffin. Coll. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 4. Mr. Griffin states Mr. Austin was dismissed from the Presby-
terian church in 1797 for ventilating his Adventist notions and that his
biographers record, that ‘‘after recovering from his delusions’’ he was
installed in the year 1815 as pastor in Bozrah, Conn.
1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 1801-1802, p. 1119.
2 Museum, June 15 and Aug. 14, 1801.
’ An account of the organization of the church was printed in the
National Intelligencer, March 10, 1802, which stated that Revs. Jer-
emiah Moore, Lewis Richards, Adam Freeman and William Parkin-
son, ministers of the Baptist church, met, and after a sermon by Rey.
Mr. Moore constituted the church.
Six persons were the constituent members, Charles P. Polk, Cephas
Fox, Charles Rogers, John Buckner, Joseph Borrows and Sarah
Borrows.
- DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 409
By the following fall a church building was erected at the
southwest corner of 19th and I streets, N. W., where the
home of the congregation was located for a good many years.
Rev. William Parkinson, who was the chaplain of the house,
served as pastor during the early period.!
An attempt to revive interest in the ancient German church
in Georgetown was made at this time, but as there are no fur-
ther references to the matter, it may be concluded no results
followed.
As soon as the building of the war office was available and
it was occupied by the state, war and navy departments,
the latter part of April, 1801,’ the hall or corridor was utilized
for Sunday religious services. Here each Sunday afternoon Rev.
Mr. McCormick, the rector of Washington Parish, conducted
services.‘
Jefferson, early in his administration, had his attention turned
to the affairs of the District, and it was not distasteful to him,
for he had been for many years deeply interested in the new
seat of government and had given much time and thought to
its administration. The first subject of District interest that
claimed his attention was the appointment of officials under
the law of Feb. 27, 1801. Although all officials thus authorized
had been appointed by his successor, confirmed by the senate
and their commissions signed and sealed, yet as this was done
in the closing hours of the last administration, the commis-
sions had not been delivered.
Mr. Jefferson proceeded on the theory that these adminis-
trative acts were not final necessarily, and while he issued the
majority of the executed commissions, yet in quite a number
of cases he withheld them and made entirely new appointments.
1 History of the Baptist Institutious of Washington City. Andrew
Rothwell, Washington, 1867.
2A discourse in the German Janguage will be delivered by Rev.
Mr. Melshirmer of Hanover, York County, on Sunday next at 10 a.m.
at the German church in Georgetown and at 3 p.m. at the Treasury
Department in the city. Georgetown Museum, Oct. 16, 1801.
3 Commissioners’ Letter Book.
4 Intelligencer, May 15, 1801.
410 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The United States Supreme Court, in the only case brought
before it (Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 158), held that the
complainants had a right to the commissions, but were not
entitled to a mandamus, the remedy asked for, because the law
conferring on the supreme court the right to issue such a
mandamus was unconstitutional, the first judicial assertion
of the supremacy of the constitution over laws repugnant to
that instrument. Jefferson characterized this decision as a
judicial veto.
The first District appointments made by Jefferson were
those of justices of the peace on March 16, 1801.! In sending
these names, together with other recess appointments, to the
senate for confirmation, Jan. 6, 1802, the president explained
that the nominations of justices of the peace made by his pred-
ecessor “having been thought too numerous,” a commission
was issued to fourteen of those nominated for Washington
County and ‘“‘to one other, to wit, Thomas Corcoran .. . and
to eleven of those nominated for Alexandria County.” ?
But in December, 1801, mandamus proceedings were begun
in the United States Supreme Court by four men whose names
had been dropped. One of the complainants was William
Marbury, who served under the Adams administration as pur-
chasing agent at the Washington navy yard, and the three
others were William Harper, Robert T. Hooe and Dennis
Ramsay, all of Alexandria. Charles Lee, the late attorney-
general of the United States, and then a member of the District
bar, was their counsel. In consequence, no doubt, of the legal
proceedings, the senate postponed action on the nominations,
and they were not confirmed until the last of April, 1802,
more than a year after the confirmation of the Adams appointees.
No further effort was made by any of the Adams men to
secure the offices which were just within their grasp. In addi-
1 List of justices of the peace from 1801 to 1901. In History of the
Office of Justice of the Peace. Charles S. Bundy. Coll. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 5.
* Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, Vol. 1, p. 400.
The Adams nominations for Washington County numbered twenty-
three, and for Alexandria County, nineteen.
, DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 411
tion to those named as justices of the peace, there were several
District men to whom Mr. Jefferson referred in sending new
names to the senate “as nominated but not appointed.”
In this class was James M. Lingan, who had been named
as marshal of the District, and who served in that capacity
at the Jefferson inauguration. At that time he was occupying
the office of collector of the port of Georgetown, having been
appointed by President Washington, March 21, 1791, when the
office was created. He resigned the collectorship in October,
1801, and John Oakley, was appointed in his stead. But little
is known of the further career of Mr. Lingan until his tragic
death in the anti-federal riots in Baltimore in the year 1812.
He was born in Maryland in the vicinity of the District. As
a young man he was a clerk in a store in Georgetown, probably
connected in a business way later on with Uriah Forrest, who
was his brother-in-law. He served in the revolutionary war
and languished for some time in one of the British prison ships.!
Daniel Carroll Brent, a nephew of Daniel Carroll, the com-
missioner, was appointed marshal by Jefferson in place of
Lingan. He was early identified with District affairs, as he
was interested in the stone quarries at Acquia, Va., which
were leased by the commissioners from his uncle George Brent,
who was part owner. The new marshal’s brother, Robert
Brent, also had an interest in the same property. Robert
Brent, who had just been named a justice of the peace for Wash-
ington County, was born in Acquia in 1764 and was married in
1787 to the eldest daughter of Notley Young and lived with
his father-in-law in Washington. William Brent, also a brother,
was in the employ of the board of commissioners frem an early
date, resigning May, 1801, although he was given occasional
employment after that date.”
John Thompson Mason received from the president the ap-
pointment to the office of attorney for the District, instead of
1 Sketch of James M. Lingan. Ella Lorraine Dorsey. Coll. Hist.
Soc., Vol. 13.
2 Robert Brent, first mayor of Washington. J. D. Morgan. Coll.
Hist. Soe., Vol. 2, Proceedings of Commissioners, July 1, 1801.
412 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Thomas Swann, as early as March 25, 1801, when the appoint-
ment of Mr. Brent was also announced in the Intelligencer.
Other changes were the appointment of George Gilpin, judge
of the orphans’ court of Alexandria, in place of John Herbert
named by Adams, while John Hewitt was made register of wills
for Washington County, instead of John Peter, whom Adams
had selected.
The most important appointment made by President Jeffer-
son was that of William Kilty as chief judge of the circuit
court of the District, who wasnamed in place of Thomas Johnson,
who declined to serve! The new chief justice, or chief judge
as the term was then, had just finished a collection of the laws
of Maryland, a work undertaken by appointment of the state
legislature. He was then forty-four years of age, and was born
in England. He served in the revolutionary war as surgeon,
and at the close of that struggle studied law at Annapolis.
After a service of nearly five years in the court of the District,
he was appointed chancellor of Maryland and held that posi-
tion up to the time of his death, Oct. 10, 1821.
His associates on the bench, who had been appointed by
Adams, were James Marshall of Alexandria, a brother of John
Marshall, who at the February term of that year of the United
States Supreme Court had taken his seat for the first time as
chief justice. James Marshall had served in the revolutionary
war, had been in France during the reign of terror as commer-
cial agent of New York, Boston and Charleston, and was the
agent of the United States in negotiating the release of Lafay-
ette. He was born in Farquier County, Va., and at the time
of this appointment was thirty-seven years of age. In 1795
he married a daughter of Robert Morris.”
1 In the National Intelligencer of March 25, 1801, this appointment,
made March 23, 1801, was announced.
2 In The Marshall Family, by William M. Paxton, Cincinnati, his
name appears as James Markham Marshall, and he is said to have been
one of Adams’s midnight judges. Hewas the only one of the name of
Marshall in the entire list of judicial appointments made by Adams,
and it is concluded that James Marshall of Alexandria, named as one
of the District judges, is the James M. Marshall mentioned by Mr.
Paxton and other biographers.
: DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PROBLEM 413
William Cranch, the other associate judge, since the collapse
of the affairs of Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson, whom he
represented in Washington, had practised law in the new city.
At this time he had completed a service of seven weeks as a
member of the board of commissioners of the city.!
The circuit court met for the first time on the 23d of March,
1801, occupying a room adjoining the senate chamber on the
south, which had been assigned for the use of the United States
Supreme Court.’
An organization of the court was completed by the appoint-
ment of Uriah Forrest, clerk of the court for Washington
County, and George Deneale, clerk of the court for Alexandria
County, who had been clerk of the hustings court of Alexandria.*
Mr. Forrest, who had gained the rank of general in the revolu-
tionary army, had returned to Georgetown at the close of the
war and formed a partnership with Benjamin Stoddert, and
carried on a large commercial business. In the year 1790,
the partners purchased a tract of 990 acres lying to the north
of Georgetown between Wisconsin Avenue and Rock Creek. In
1794 Mr. Forrest acquired Mr. Stoddert’s interest and became
the sole owner of the tract, which was called Rosedale. In
that year he erected a frame house on the north side of. Ordway
Street a short distance east of Wisconsin Avenue, which is still
standing and still in the possession of his descendants. Here he
was living when he received the appointment as clerk. A short
time before, he sold to his brother-in-law Philip Barton Key,
250 acres of the Rosedale tract, which Mr. Key named Woodley.
Mr. Key, who practised law in the District up to the year 1806,
when he transferred his business in the District to his nephew,
Francis Scott Key, built a house on the south side of Woodley
1 Mr. Cranch was appointed by President Adams, Jan. 8, 1801, to
fill the vacancy caused by the death, Dec. 25, 1800, of Gustavus Scott,
who had served since Aug. 23, 1794. Mr. Cranch resigned March 3,
1801.
2 Intelligencer, March 25, 1801. The Museum, March 27, 1801.
Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 25.
3 Cranch Cireuit Court Reports, Vol. 1, p.34. Mr. Deneale was
also lieutenant colonel of the 106th regiment of Virginia militia.
414 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Road, still standing, and between 30th and 31st streets, where
he lived, except during the summer, until his death in the year
1817.1 Mr. Key was acting as the legal representative of the
commissioners, when in February, 1801, he was appointed by
President Adams chief judge of the United States circuit court
in Maryland, which office congress at the following session
abolished when the new system of courts was done away with.
The clerks of the circuit court were required by the law of
March 3, 1801, to record deeds, thus legislating out of office
the clerk who, under the law passed by the Maryland legis-
lature, had performed that duty for the property owners in
that portion of the District. This place had been held from
the beginning by John M. Gantt.?
The clerks’ office for Washington County was located during
the first months in a house on the south side of F Street and pre-
sumably at thesoutheast corner of 15th and F streets, or just east
of the corner.* In the spring of 1802 the office was removed to
the Seven Buildings, Pennsylvania Avenue, between 19th and
20th streets,* and in the fall of the following year, still another
change was made which placed the office west of Washington
Circle on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 23d
and 24th streets.°
On the second Tuesday of April, 1801, the orphans’ court,
William Hammond Dorsey, judge, convened in “the house of
William Rhodes,” which was the tavern at the northeast cor-
ner of 15th and F streets, N. W.§
1 Pictures of the City of Washington in the Past, pp. 160-161.
Samuel C. Busey, Washington, 1898, Intelligencer, Dec. 23, 1805.
Statement of Mr. Key claiming to be a citizen of Maryland. An-
nals of Congress, 10th Cong., Ist Sess., January, 1808, p. 1489.
2 At this initial session of the court the following were admitted as
attorneys: John T. Mason, R. W. Peacock, A. B. Woodward, John M.
Gantt, James S. Morsell, Charles Simmes, Elias B. Caldwell, A. C.
Magruder, John Hewitt, Henry Moore and Daniel Clarke. Museum,
March 27, 1801.
3 Museum, March 27, 1801.
4 Intelligencer, May 10, 1802.
5 Same, Sept. 26, 1803.
6’ Same, April 8, 1801. The notice was signed ‘‘by order of John
Hewitt, register.”’
CHAPTER XVI
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE
In providing a place on the board of city commissioners for
William Cranch, who was struggling to maintain himself by a law
practice in the infant city, President Adams not only secured to
the city the services of an able man, but also was of assistance to
a relative by marriage. As soon as the circuit court judgeships
of the District were created, Mr. Adams advanced Mr. Cranch
to one of the places, and then the way was open to assist an old
friend and a one-time prominent Massachusetts citizen, by
appointing Tristam Dalton to succeed Mr. Cranch. Mr.
Dalton was at that time in reduced circumstances, having lost
heavily in the failure of Lear and Co.!_ But early in the year
1801, before Mr. Dalton came on the board, a full report of
what the commissioners had done—with the dominant note, so
familiar, of lack of funds — had been sent to congress by the
president. What the commissioners wanted to know was,
whether the city lots should be forced to a sale, whatever the
state of the market, in order that the instalments of the Mary-
land loans be paid as they became due.? The commissioners
also furnished information of a similar character to the chair-
man of the house committee to which the affairs of the city had
been referred.? A few weeks later the report of the committee
was laid before the house.‘
It was found that all together the commissioners had spent a
little more than a million of dollars in providing a place for the
national government, and referring to a previous report, the com-
1The principal in that concern and also a heavy loser, Tobias Lear,
was about the same time provided for by President Jefferson, who
appointed him commercial agent at St. Domingo.
2 American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1, p. 219, report to the
president.
3 Proceedings of Commissioners, Feb. 6, 1801.
4 American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1, p. 243, Feb. 27, 1801.
415
416 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
mittee stated that of this amount $360,000 was unpaid, while
on the contrary there were $144,000 in debts due the city.
Of the 10,000 lots comprising the original public holdings
4682 remained unsold, and according to the estimated value
placed on them by the commissioners, based on the prices ob-
tained by individuals for lots, they were worth $875,000."
The committee was rather doubtful about this estimate of the
value of the public property and was of the opinion that re-
liance could not be placed upon money from such a source to
complete what was necessary for the accommodation of the
government. The committee recommended, apparently en-
tirely in the interests of economy, that the board of commis-
sioners be abolished and its business transferred to the treasury
department, in order, as the report stated, that the expenses of
the board might be saved.
A few days after the report had been submitted, the sixth
congress came to an end without making any provision for
the new district except as found in the law of Feb. 27, 1801,
and the supplemental act. As a consequence, the commissioners
were obliged, in accordance with existing law, to continue the
sale of the public lots in a rapidly falling market. No less than
two public sales, each continued for several days, were held
during the year 1801.
This serious phase of the situation was called to the attention
of congress by the commissioners early at the opening of the
seventh congress.” President Jefferson, in forwarding the
report, suggested that in view of the state of the market for
city property it would be wise to advance money from the
treasury to be refunded when sales were eventually made.
1 Jn the fall of 1801 the commissioners wrote to the following per-
sons whom it may be inferred were the principal landholders at that
time, asking to be furnished with lists of lots sold by them: Daniel
Carroll of Duddington, Notley Young, Thomas Law, James Barry,
George Walker, John Templeman, Samuel Davidson, estate of Gus-
tavus Scott, estate of David Burnes, Thomas Tingey, Walter Hellen,
Robert Peter, Wm. Prout, Samuel Blodgett, Wm. H. Dorsey, James
M. Lingan, Benj. Stoddert, and Uriah Forrest. Commissioners’ Letter
Book, Oct. 9, 1801.
? American State Papers, Miscela., Vol. 1, p. 254, Jan. 11, 1802.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 417
This course was followed by congress by the device of au-
thorizing the sale of public lots to pay the Maryland loans, pro-
vided it could be done, in the opinion of the president, “without
an unwarrantable sacrifice of the public property.” 4
As the sequel proved, practically the entire amount of the
Maryland loans was repaid directly from the treasury. The
law which was framed on the lines laid down in the report
made by a committee to the house, Feb. 12, 1802,? also pro-
vided that after June 1, 1802, the board of commissioners should
cease to exist and that the affairs of the city, heretofore under
its care, be placed under the direction of a superintendent to
be appointed by the president.
On the 4th of June Thomas Munroe, for many years the
clerk of the board, was appointed superintendent of the city, a
position which he held for fourteen years.
As required by law the accounts of the commissioners were
adjusted for settlement by the accounting officer of the treasury
department, but owing to the lack of some of the vouchers, no
final settlement was made. The cash in hand, amounting to
$110.59, was turned over to the superintendent.*
The former clerk found himself clothed with the powers of
the board of city commissioners, but evidently did not con-
sider he had the right to pay himself a salary, nor indeed to
1 An act to abolish the board of commissioners, May 1, 1802.
2 American State Papers, Miscela., Vol. 1, p. 260.
3 Letter of the comptroller of the treasury, giving statement of
accounts which have remained more than three years unsettled, Dec.
11, 1810.
Gustavus Scott and other late commissioners of the city of Wash-
ington, $100,000.
Remarks. Advanced on account of the city accounts in the audi-
tor’s office. Vouchers defective.
Another entry of interest is, John Adams, late president of the
United States, for the accommodation of his household, $12,898. Re-
marks. Advanced to him for the accommodation of the household of
the president. Mr. Adams has forwarded a certificate that the money
was expended according to law. But this not being such a voucher as
is admissible at the treasury, the balance remains on the books. Also
report of a house committee in relation to the sale of public lots.
18th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 90, Feb. 28, 1825.
voL. I—2E5
418 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Robert King, Sr., and his son Robert King, Jr., the former of
whom had been employed as surveyor since the fall of 1797.
Mr. King, Sr., however, continued in the service a little more
than two months after the new law went into effect, when he
returned to England accompanied by Robert King. Mr.
Munroe was left alone to represent the government interests
in the city. The following year congress, in providing a salary
for the superintendent to date back six months to the time of
his appointment made provision for his office expenses and
created the office of surveyor of the city with a per diem pay of
$3. All these expenses the law provided were to be paid from
“the city fund,” as the receipts from the sale of lots were termed.!
A personal interest was shown by President Jefferson in the
management of city affairs. It is recorded that the president,
“having communicated personally with the board at this of-
fice,’ * directed that Pennsylvania Avenue, from the president’s
house to the M Street bridge should be completed, and also New
Jersey Avenue, from the bridge overa tributary of St. James Creek
between D and E streets to the capitol. It is also suggestive to
find in the same record the entry of an order directing that a
foot-path be made, as requested by James Sheafe, a member of
the house from New Hampshire. Also at the same period
the city funds were taxed for the cost of a foot-path from the
residence of Samuel Dexter, secretary of the treasury, on K Street
between 25th and 26thstreets,to the footway on Pennsylvania Av-
enue, just west of Washington Circle.* An application, evidently
1United States Stats., Vol. 2, p. 235. March 3, 1803. Nicholas
King was appointed by the superintendent the first surveyor of the
city, although the superintendent in a letter dated Aug. 13, 1802,
makes use of that title in speaking of Robert King, Sr. (Pot. Flats
Case, Testimony, p. 1528.) He held the position until May, 1812.
His duties were not defined until the act of Jan. 12, 1809, when he
was given charge of the subdivision of lots and authority to fix the
building line. Six years later an officer, termed also surveyor of the
city, was created by a city ordinance of Aug. 3, 1815, which provided
that the new official should ‘‘lay down, point out and mark the line
and gradation of any street or avenue.’’ There was no clash of
authority, however, as the city and federal authorities appointed
Latrobe surveyor of the city.
2 Proceedings of the Commissioners, Oct. 13, 1801.
3’ The same, Jan. 30, 1801.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 419
from citizens who sought to have the money derived from the
sale of lots used in improving F Street from the President’s Square
to 11thStreet, thence to Pennsylvania Avenue ; also E Street from
11th to 8th and thence to Pennsylvania Avenue, was rejected by the
commissioners because it would be a use of public money “for
specific rather than general benefits,’ which would seem to in-
dicate that in the minds of the commissioners when a govern-
ment official desired a walk to his residence, that was of benefit
to the entire community, while the improvement of streets for
citizens was only a specific benefit.! 4
During the closing month of 1801 the first official street light-
ing was proposed when lamps were directed to be placed at the
New Jersey Avenue bridge, at A Street, N., and near the capitol,
and “one on a tree near the turn from the capitol into Pennsyl-
vania Avenue,” and one near the M Street bridge.”
Under the direction of the commissioners a further effort
was made at this time to clear off the grounds about the presi-
dent’s house. This was done during the summer of 1801, and
a post and rail fence, six rails high, was ordered to be built.
The frame buildings and sheds used as workshops and for the
storing of material, were removed. It was on the President’s
Square that the first market house in the city stood, and when
in the summer of 1801 the citizens started a movement to erect
a market house on Market Square on the south side of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue, between 7th and 9th streets, the commissioners
at first agreed to help on the good work by subscribing $500
towards the building fund.* But evidently the popular subscrip-
tions did not warrant such an ambitious scheme, although Dr.
Thornton acted as chairman of the meeting of citizens and
William Brent was the treasurer and James Hoban and Clot-
1 Commissioners’ Letter Book, Oct. 15, 1801, commissioners to the
president. The previous spring a committee was appointed at a meet-
ing of property holders and residents of F Street and instructed to raise
by subscription $400 to improve the street, but evidently the commit-
tee failed to get the money, and so subsequently an appeal was made
to the commissioners. IJntelligencer, April 1, 1801.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Dec. 18, 1801.
3 The same, July 31, 1801.
420 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
worthy Stephenson were constituted a building committee.
Finally the commissioners “proposed that if the expenses of
removal were paid by the subscribers they would give “the old
market house” on the President’s Square as a temporary aid.
to the market.”
On a subsequent date, James Hoban was authorized “to
remove the public sheds from the President’s Square to the
Market Square.”’ By the middle of December, on Tuesday the
15th, the market was opened and also on the following Thurs-
day and Saturday which are the market days at the present
time. The place soon received the name of centre market
which it bears to this day.2 Some two months after the close
of the first session of congress in the new city, James Hoban
was directed by the commissioners to submit estimates of the
cost of erecting “a temporary building on the elliptic foundations
in the south wing of the Capitol for the accommodation of
the representatives of the United States.” *
On the 20th of June, 1801, a contract was made for the erection
of a brick structure, elliptic in shape 70 x 94 feet. It was
completed in November and occupied by the house on the
assembling of the first session of the seventh congress. A
covered passage connected the new chamber of the house
with the senate chamber. It is quite evident from the prompt-
ness with which such a temporary provision was made that the
room in the north wing where the first session of the house in
the new city was held was not well adapted for such uses.®
The expenditures for city improvements from the funds of
the commissioners were supplemented in a more liberal manner
by the levy court or board of magistrates of Washington County
than was the case with their predecessors of Prince George
County. Itis evident the justices of the peace of the new county
1 Intelligencer, July 15, 1801.
2 Proceedings of Commissioners, Aug. 29, 1801.
3 Museum, Dec. 11, 1801. Intelligencer, Dec. 18 and 26, 1801.
Corp. law to establish markets, Oct. 6, 1802.
4 Proceedings of Commissioners, May 27, 1801.
5 The contract price for building the ‘‘ Oven,” as it came to be known,
was $4789. Proceedings of Commissioners, June 20, 1801.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 421
organized shortly after the appointments had been made, for by
September the assessment of the real estate had been completed.
Washington Boyd, a native of the District and formerly in the
surveying department of the city, was appointed collector at a
meeting of the board which was held at the capitol at which
time property owners were notified that those dissatisfied with
the valuations would be heard! Mr. Boyd gave public notice
of the days he would be in Georgetown and Washington when
he hoped all concerned will call and pay their taxes, as he as-
sured them the small commissions on the small amount of tax
which he has to collect will not compensate him for the trouble
of calling on each individual.? The first protest against the
form of government provided for the two District counties
came from no less a source than the grand jury of Alexandria
County, which presented as a grievance “certain powers vested
in and emoluments granted to the levy court” of that county.®
In addition to objecting to the justices of the peace drawing
$2 per day for their services without limiting the times of sitting,
the grand jury protested against their taxing “the people with-
out possessing their general suffrage.”
As the records of the levy court have not been preserved it is
impossible to trace with any degree of accuracy the part Wash-
ington County court played at this period in the material
development of the city. At least the repair and maintenance
of the bridges in the city were paid from the funds under its
control derived from taxes on real estate and from liquor and
other licenses. A rather interesting item of expenditure on
the part of the court was the purchase from the commissioners
for $400 of the frame building on judiciary square that had
been used for a hospital for the workmen employed on the public
buildings. It was to be used as a poor house or hospital, and
Robert Brent, who represented the levy court in this transac-
tion, was notified the building was sold “subject to be removed
1 Museum, Sept. 11, 1801.
2The same, Nov. 23, 1801.
’ Washington Federalist, Jan. 25, 1802.
‘The Museum, Sept. 11, 1801. Intelligencer, Oct. 30, 1801.
422 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
by order of the Government at any time.” A curious in-
stance of the blending of governmental agencies in the city at
this period is found in the activity in levy court business of
William Thornton, a member of that body, and also of the board
of city commissioners. In the meantime the marshal of the
District, Daniel C. Brent, had employed a man to take charge
of the jail, which as far as can be judged from the scanty rec-
ords, was the building used for that purpose by the levy court
of Prince George County, and located on the north side of C
Street, just east of 6th Street, N. W. The prison bars and
walls were evidently not very secure, for very early the marshal
gave notice of “the escape from the prison of Washington
County in the city of Washington of three men.” ?
For serving the warrants of the justices and for the arrest of
offenders, the services of constables were employed and such
officials were appointed by the circuit court.’
The circuit court held its second session at Alexandria on
the second Monday in April (the 13th instant) as provided in
the organic act, the first session having been held in Washington
the fourth Monday in March (the 23d instant). A grand
jury was formed, and in his charge to that body, the chief judge,
William Kilty, gave a sketch of the laws by which the District
wasformed ; anditmay be, aware of the local feeling at that time,
at least critical if not hostile to the new order of things, he added,
“This event, so novel in its nature, so important in its results,
may excite sentiments, solemn and awful indeed, but not
those of compunction or regret. It was the consequence of
voluntary offers and wished-for acceptance. It separates
from each state a part of its soil and a portion of its citizens,
but it forms a community compact in situation, united in in-
1 Proceedings of the Commissioners, Sept. 15, 1801.
2 Inielligencer, Dec. 23, 1801.
An act supplementary to an act concerning the District of Co-
lumbia. March 3, 1801.
‘The sessions of the court were directed to be held alternately in
each county every month except February, May, August, and Novem-
ber, which was changed by the law of May 3, 1802, to two terms
yearly in each county.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 423
terest and happily placed in that centre from which must ema-
nate the collected wisdom of united America.” 1 About a
month earlier, and less than two weeks after Mr. Jefferson had
become president, he was entertained at dinner by the citizens
of Alexandria. The vice-president, the cabinet officers and
General James Wilkinson in command of the army accom-
panied the president. The distinguished guests were received
at the Virginia end of the Georgetown ferry by two troops of
cavalry, while near Alexandria Captain Janney’s company of
riflemen fired a salute, and drawn up at the entrance to the town
was Colonel George Deneale’s regiment of militia.”
A few days prior to the convening of the circuit court in
Alexandria, Judge Kilty organized what was termed in the
newspaper account, a court of admiralty. This term only de-
scribed a part of the functions of this new judicial body which
was a United States district court for the Potomac district
created by the laws of Feb. 13, 1801, and of March 3, 1801.*
George Deneale, the clerk of the circuit court of Alexandria
County, was appointed clerk. The president of the United
States appointed George Dent marshal of the Potomac district.
After an existence for two terms, namely April and October,
1801, this court was abolished by the act of March 8, 1802, which
restored the United States district courts established by the law
of 1789.4
1 Alexandria Advertiser, April 20, 1801. It may be inferred from
the lack of reference to the subject that the anomaly as well as the bur-
den placed on the judges in the administration of the Maryland laws
in Washington County and Virginia laws in Alexandria County by
one court was looked upon as only temporary or until congress pro-
vided a uniform system. But such an expectation was not realized.
The old Maryiand and Virginia laws continued in force, except as
repealed or modified by the laws of congress. Nearly a century elapsed
before a code was provided for the District as it is at present territo-
rially constituted.
2 The same, March 16, 1801.
3 The same, April 8 and 9, 1801.
4The Potomac district created by the law of Feb. 13, 1801, was
formed from the Maryland and the Virginia judicial districts and
comprised Montgomery County, a portion of Prince George County,
and Fairfax and Loudoun counties.
424 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Owing to the change in the political relations of the District,
its territory was no longer included within the jurisdiction of
existing courts, so that congress, by the act of April 29, 1802,
instead of creating a separate court, empowered the chief judge
of the circuit court of the District to hold a district court of
the United States in April and October of each year with the
same powers and jurisdiction as vested in the district courts of
the United States with appeal to the circuit court of the District
of Columbia and from thence to the United States Supreme
Court. The contemporary title of an admiralty court was
probably due to the class of cases that were ready to be heard
at that time.
At the close of the second term of this court Judge Kilty sent
a memorial to congress asking for an increase in his salary “in
consideration of the additional labor and inconvenience” in
holding the district court for the Potomac district, but the com-
mittee of the house in an adverse report expressed the opinion
that his compensation was adequate.! |
The opening session of the circuit court in Alexandria County
was apparently a brief one, although it was at this term that
the actual work of the court was begun in the hearing and decid-
ing cases.?, The court appointed Cleon Moore the register of
wills, commissioner in chancery and notary public, also George
Gilpin, the same name as that of the judge of the orphans’ court
of Alexandria County, as harbor master, and Charles Alexander,
Jr., and Elisha C. Dick, coroners.’
From the outset the court held its sessions in the court-house
in Alexandria, formerly used by the Fairfax County court, and
it was in this building the orphans’ court held its first session
1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., ist Sess., pp. 326 and 433, Dec.
15, 1801.
2 The reports of the District of Columbia circuit court prepared by
Judge Cranch begins its record with cases heard at the first Alexandria
term. No cases are reported as having been decided at the first Wash-
ington term.
3 Alexandria Advertiser, April 14, 1801. The following were ad-
mitted as attorneys: Charles Lee, Thomas Swann, Edmund I. Lee,
Robert I. Taylor, John Love, Walter Jones, Jr., George Young and
Jonathan Faw.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 425
in June.’ At the next term of the circuit court in Washington
County, which began June 22, 1801, the court met as before in
the room adjoining on the south the senate chamber. A grand
jury was formed, and as the chronicler of the time reported,
Judge Kilty delivered a pertinent charge. Some notion of the
character of the cases that came before the court, as well as the
nature of the penalties imposed, may be gathered from the fol-
lowing record as it appeared in the Alexandria Advertiser
of July 9, 1801: John Chancey for larceny, publicly whipped ;
Charles Houseman, for larceny, publicly whipped and burned
in the hand; Samuel Barke for larceny, burnt in the hand;
John Peder and Samuel Morris, larceny, found guilty, but on the
recommendation of the court were pardoned by the president
of the United States.
The whipping post as an instrument of judicial punishment
was also used at this period in Washington County, as witness
an advertisement in the Intelligencer of the marshal of the
District and the jailer of the Washington jail offering a reward
for the return of prisoners who broke jail June 6, 1802. The
back of one of the men, the notice reads, is “much seared from
a whipping he received at the public post of this place.” The
pillory was also in use.?
It may be noted that even at this early period in the career
of the District, it had become a central point for the trade in
slaves. The practice of citizens from distant parts of the coun-
try coming into the District to pursue a traffic “fraught with
so much misery to a class of beings entitled to our protection
by the laws of justice and humanity” was denounced by the
grand jury of Alexandria County in the course of a few months
after the organization of the circuit court.*
1 Alexandria Advertiser, May 22, 1801.
2 Intelligencer, June 22, 1801.
3C. C. Rep. Cranch, Vol. 1, p. 123.
4 Washington Federalist, Jan. 25, 1802. That this protest had some
sanction from the community may be inferred from the fact there was
in existence at that time in Alexandria ‘‘A society for the relief and
protection of persons illegally held in bondage.’ Alexandria Adver-
tiser, May 8, 1801. Call for a meeting of the society to be held at
A. MecClean’s school.
426 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Yet so slow was the progress of public sentiment on this sub-
ject, that nearly half a century passed before the legislative
redress asked for by the grand jurors of Alexandria County was
secured. As one outcome of the compromise bill of 1850, the
slave trade in the District was abolished.
The demands made upon the available space in the capitol
building during the first year it was occupied is clearly
brought out by the varied uses of the room adjoining the senate
chamber on the south. It was originally designed for the office
of the clerk of the senate and was probably occupied by that
official. But here also were held the sessions of the United
States Supreme Court and of the circuit court of the District,
while in addition the books brought by congress from Philadel-
phia and those that had been purchased in accordance with the
act of April 24, 1800, were placed in that room. Here they
remained until the beginning of the year 1802, when by direc-
tion of the law of Jan. 26, 1802, the room on the west front of the
north wing just vacated by the house was appropriated for the
use of the library of congress that was by that law given its
first organization.!
The clerk of the house, John Beckley, was appointed librarian
by President Jefferson. At that time the library consisted of
such books as had been purchased by congress during the ten
years of its existence, and also 740 books purchased in England
in the year 1801. When a library room was assigned by the
law of 1802 it was directed that “the books or libraries which
have heretofore been kept separately by each house shall be
removed and set up with those lately purchased.” The first
catalogue was published in 1802.
While the levy court was looking after the repairs of existing
bridges in the city, the citizens were ambitious to provide such
connections with the great extent of contiguous territory in
Maryland and Virginia.
At this time interest was revived in a project to erect a bridge
over the Eastern Branch at the foot of Kentucky Avenue where
1 History of the Library of Congress. Vol. 1, 1800-1864. William
Dawson Johnston, p. 34. Washington, 1904.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 427
the upper ferry waslocated. In the spring of 1801 those named in
the incorporation act of the Maryland legislature of Dec. 24,
1795, announced that books would be opened for subscriptions
to the stock of the company which was limited to $45,000.1
In a couple of months all the stock had been taken,” and by the
end of October proposals to erect the bridge were asked for
over the name of William Brent, secretary of the Eastern Branch
Bridge Co., but more than two years passed before the work
was advanced enough to enable the company to collect
tolls.?
The condition of that waterway at that period may be
judged from the description given of the character of the pro-
posed structure. The width of the stream was stated to be
1543 feet, the average depth of the water at common low tide
was four feet, except one channel, which was twelve to fourteen
feet in depth and 450 feet wide.‘
While such a facility of communication with the adjacent
territory of Maryland was being prepared, a still more am-
bitious project was proposed, when announcement was
made that a book had been opened at Stelle’s Hotel “by
sundry inhabitants” of Washington for subscriptions to shares
for the erection of a bridge over the Potomac from Mary-
land Avenue to Alexander’s Island.° There is no record of
the response to this appeal, but it may be inferred that it was
not encouraging, for the following month a petition was pre-
sented to the house asking the aid and patronage of congress
in the enterprise.®
As the first appeal made to congress by citizens of the Dis-
trict for assistance from the public funds in a local improve-
ment, this petition is of interest, but it gains an additional
1The Museum, March 18, 1801.
2 National Intelligencer, May 4,1801. Alexandria Advertiser, May 5,
1801.
3 Intelligencer, Jan. 11, 1804. Notice that tolls would be collected
for crossing the bridge.
4Same, Oct. 26, 1801.
5 Same, Nov. 14, 1801.
® Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., Ist Sess., 1801-1802, p. 347.
See also pp. 422 and 426 for counter and additional petitions.
428 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
consequence as it brought to the attention of the members of
the national legislature a phase in the government of the Dis-
trict just assumed that for some reason was regarded as peculiar
to the people of the District; namely, there were differences of
opinion on local matters. For the petition favoring the bridge
was followed by one signed by citizens of the District opposed
to such a measure. In a brief time no less than five petitions
representing current opinions had been presented. They were
all referred to a committee that was considering a form of inter-
nal government for the District, which proved to be a final
disposition as far as that congress was concerned.
But it was soon evident the project of bridging the Potomac
was really vital in the prosperity of the three towns of the Dis-
trict. A bridge meant not merely improved facilities for local
travel and trade, but a lessening of nearly six miles in the great
highway between the north and the south. It also meant
leaving Georgetown to one side. There was also the peril of
such a structure causing an increase in the deposits which were
already impairing the navigation of the Virginia channel, as
well as that on the short stretch of water front of Washington
between Peters Point at the foot of D Street, N. W., and the
mouth of Rock Creek.?
Independent of the effect of the bridge on the course of com-
merce and travel, doubt was early expressed that such a struc-
ture could be built in the place proposed strong enough to with-
stand the force of the seasonal floods or freshes, as the term then
was, that were characteristic of the Potomac then and have
been ever since.
Only twenty years had elapsed since the memorable rise of the
river in the spring of 1780, when a dam was formed of ice
masses, trees and other débris extending from Georgetown to
Analostan Island. The water forced west of the island formed
a channel there, while the main channel that up to that time
1 A notion of the opinion of the day on what proved to be one of the
most bitter and long-continued controversies in this period of the
District can be gathered from the communications on the subject in
the newspapers. Intelligencer, Dec. 11, 1801, and Jan. 22, 1802. Mu-
seum, Jan. 6 and 11, 1802.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 429
passed along the Maryland shore became partially filled and
the Virginia channel was created.!
But the effect on Georgetown, and more especially on its
river trade, was what imparted heat to the controversy, par-
ticularly later, for it was not until some six years passed that a
charter for a bridge company was secured and the first structure
was built.
“Ts there,” asked one of the first who discussed the matter,
“a large commercial city on this side of the Atlantic on a river
navigable to sea-going vessels, below which there is a bridge ?”’ ?
Shall the Potomac be the first to try the hazardous experi-
ment? he asked. How would the people of Philadelphia or
Baltimore or Alexandria like such a proposition and view the
prospect of being pocketed on the river with all free and ready
access shut off? He pointed out that such a bridge would be
an impediment to navigation because of the difficulty sailing
vessels of large size would have in making the opening at the
draw. It would be necessary, he asserted, to tow them, thus
losing time and also the opportunity of taking advantage of the
tide. The smaller vessels, he added, that now are able te ascend
the river by tacking would be deprived of that recourse. The
writer further pointed out that in the nature of things about
the piles on which the bridge would rest mud banks would
be formed that would soon render the channel useless.
How absurd it is, he exclaimed, that it should be proposed to
create such a condition within a stone throw of where the citi-
zens of Georgetown were spending several thousand dollars to
remove an obstruction in the channel. This reference of the
writer was to the efforts that were being made to remove a mud
bank at the south end of Analostan Island. In the issue of the
1 Report of George W. Hughes, Civil Engineer to Secretary of the
Treasury. 23d Cong., 2d Sess., No. 133, Feb. 21, 1835. Also speech
of Joseph Lewis, Jr., of Virginia in the House. Annals of Congress,
8th Cong., 2d Sess., 1804-1805, p. 795. Also injunction suit Wash-
ington Bridge Co. vs. Corp. of Georgetown. In Potomac Flats Case,
United States vs. Morris. Testimony, p. 454.
2 Communication signed Citizen of Georgetewn. Intelligencer, Jan.
22,1802. Reprinted from the Museum.
430 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Museum of April 10, 1801, of the preceding spring was printed a
communication calling attention to the importance of the re-
moval of this mud bank which impeded the entrance of ships
into the Georgetown harbor. Loaded ships, the writer stated,
can no longer pass over it.
The importance of the subject was at once recognized, for
the Museum four days later recorded that a meeting of citizens
had been held to devise means to remove a bank of mud that
had formed in the channel of the river “in the last two or three
years just below the point of Mason’s Island.” “It seems,”
continues this account, “that over this bank there is not more
than eleven feet of water at low tide, although immediately
above and below it the channel is from twenty-four to thirty
feet deep.”
A committee was appointed to prepare a plan, and several
thousand dollars were expended during the summer and fall of
1801 “by the citizens of Georgetown and the upper part of
Washington” in clearing the obstruction from the channel.!
The promoters of the two bridge enterprises no doubt were
confident that the more direct and rapid means of access to the
city which they proposed would tend to expand and stimulate
its growth and business. At the same time they naturally
looked for some return on their money, and in this they were
encouraged by the statement to the stockholders of the affairs
of the Georgetown Bridge Co., which was at that time pub-
lished.2 The stockholders were informed that the structure
which had been erected below the Little Falls at a cost of nearly
$63,000 had yielded, since the year 1797, when tolls were first
received, a sufficient revenue to pay the maintenance charges
and also interest on a debt of $16,000 which had been contracted
to meet the deficiency in subscriptions to the stock. It was now
proposed to sell eighty-six shares of the unissued stock at the
par value of $200 per share, pay off the indebtedness, thus
leaving the revenues free for the payment of a dividend which it
was calculated would be at least six per cent per annum. The
stock would be first offered to stockholders and the shares not
1 Museum, Jan. 11, 1802. > The same, Dec. 21, 1801.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 431
taken by them would be offered to the public. It may be con-
cluded that this promising statement of the condition and pros-
pects of the enterprise failed to elicit an adequate response, for,
in the course of a year a suit was brought against the bridge
company to enforce the sale of its property in satisfaction of
the debt which the proceeds of the new stock were designed to
satisfy.t An enterprise that was prosperous was the Bank of
Alexandria: six years previously the Virginia legislature had
authorized an increase in its capital stock from $150,000 to
$500,000. Only about one-half of the new stock had been dis-
posed of and at this time the remaining shares were offered for
sale and found a ready market.”
The uncertainty as to the effect of the assumption of the
government of the District, on the future of this institution as
well as that of the Bank of Columbia, was finally dispelled by
the clause in the act of Feb. 27, 1801, which left undisturbed all
corporate bodies in the District. The anxiety on this subject
cropped out in newspaper discussion.®
This feeling was apparently responsible for the provision of
the Virginia act of Jan. 21, 1801, extending the bank charter to
March 4, 1811, which authorized the stockholders to hold the
meetings for the election of directors in Fairfax County. Also
to “remove and conduct the business of the said bank out of the
District of Columbia and within the county of Fairfax.” But
as it turned out the corporate privileges of the bank were left
unimpaired by congress, so that this proved to be an illustra-
tion of the adage that most of our troubles never occur. The
bank continued in business under the Virginia charter until
within a few days of its expiration, when its existence was con-
tinued by the act of congress of Feb. 15, 1811.
It is probable neither the present nor future prospects of the
1 Intelligencer, Oct. 20, 1802.
2 Alexandria Advertiser, June 10, 1801.
3 Considerations on the government of the territory of Columbia,
No. VI, being a reply to a writer under the signature of Columbus on
the subject of the banks of Alexandria and Georgetown. A. B. Wood-
ward. Georgetown Museum, Feb. 4, 1801. No issue of this essay in
separate form is known.
432 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
city as such had much to do with the action of the directors of
the Bank of the United States in deciding to establish a branch
bank in the new city. The fiscal affairs of the government and
convenience in attending to them through an agency at the
seat of government were the determining factor. At any rate
this decision was reached in the summer of 1801, and by the end
of September the arrangements were well under way and James
Davidson of Philadelphia was appointed cashier.1 A lot was
purchased at the northeast corner of 13th and F streets, N. W.,
and here by the end of November a two-story building was
erected 25 X 41 feet and adjoining it on the east was built a
house for the cashier, three stories high and 24 X 36 feet. A
local board of directors was appointed, following in this respect
the policy as to all branches of the parent institution established
in various parts of the country. The Washington branch bank
was also known later on as the office of discount and deposit
for the District of Columbia, but of course the main business
was governmental as it was the depository of public funds,
disbursed the dividends on United States stock and collected
and transmitted the public funds.
Under the terms of the charter of the Bank of the United
States granted by congress Feb. 27, 1791, to continue to March
4, 1811, no other bank could be authorized by that body during
the life of the charter, so that without a branch of the United
States Bank, Washington would have had no incorporated
bank until after 1811, and in fact no banking institution was
established in the District by act of congress until after that
date. The Bank of Columbia in Georgetown and the Alex-
andria Bank, being in existence prior to the District becoming a
separate political entity, were left undisturbed in the rights they
possessed. In each of the towns, however, prior to 1811, what
were known as private banks were established, managed by lim-
ited partnerships or unincorporated companies. Thus the Bank
1 Intelligencer, Sept. 23, 1801. Museum, Nov. 30, 1801. Previous to
the opening of the Branch Bank, according to a report of Albert Galla-
tin (Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., Ist Sess., June 13, 1812, p. 2056),
all the treasury business was transacted through the Bank of Columbia.
_ USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 433
of Potomac was started in Alexandria in 1804, the Bank of
Washington in Washington in 1809, and the Union Bank in
Georgetown in 1809.1 In January, 1801, the prospectus of a stock
company was issued which proposed to do a general fire insurance
business as well as banking.? This company was the Washing-
ton Association and United States Insurance Co., Dr. William
Thornton, president. It was one of Samuel Blodgett’s schemes
and bore his characteristic mark in the amount of the capital
stock, which was to be $2,000,000. Another characteristic
provision was that payment for shares would be received in lots
in the city of Washington, but not to exceed one-half of the
amount of the stock. Announcement was made that this first
fire insurance company in the new city would commence busi-
ness on the 16th of June at the office of the company opposite
the United States Treasury Office? As might be expected in
the case of a company placing such a large proportion of its
capital in property that was in litigation, and which in the course
of three years was sold without yielding enough to satisfy the
first lien, its existence was a brief one.
Another enterprise that was started in August, 1801, was the
pioneer building association of the city. It was known as the
Washington Building Co., Clotworthy Stephenson, chairman,
and Thomas Herty, secretary.* In less than a year the associa-
1 Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 8, p. 15.
2 Intelligencer, Jan. 1, 1801, the constitution of the company in full.
It is also published in pamphlet form with the title, Constitution of
the Washington Association and United States Insurance Co., 8 pp.
Washington City. Printed by Charles Cist, north E Street, near
the post-office [1801].
’ The same, June 15,1801. Also statements of Dr. Thornton in the
issue of August 31, and in the Museum of Sept. 7, 1801, defending the
company from the charge of having received lots from Blodgett in
exchange for stock. It was asserted the lots were twice mortgaged,
which Dr. Thornton claimed was only the case nominally. Dr. Thorn-
ton added that a bank would be opened by the company, ‘‘as soon as
the building now in forwardness is ready in the city.”’
4 Intelligencer, Nov. 4,1801. The constitution is given in full and is
also published in separate form, with the title, The Constitution or
Articles of Agreement of the Washington Building Co., etc. 16 pp.
Washington, Territory of Columbia. Printed by Way and Groff,
north E Street, 1801.
VOL. I—2F
434 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tion was able to offer for sale three houses which it had built on
12th Street, just south of Pennsylvania Avenue, to one of which
the office of the company had been removed.' At first, however,
the office was the same as that of its secretary, who, in addition to
conveying, as he informed the public, had “opened an office for
the sale of city lots on the Pennsylvania Avenue fronting the
President’s Square near Rhodes Tavern.’”’? Monthly payments
of one dollar on each share were to be made by the shareholders
of the building association, and the money thus secured was to
be used in the building and finishing houses and buying lots
and dwellings in the city of Washington. The last act in the
entire collapse of the first and largest business enterprise of the
city, the sugar refinery at Greenleaf Point, came in the first
month of 1801, when James D. Barry, as trustee under a decree
of the court of chancery of Maryland, offered for sale the build-
ing on the west side of New Jersey Avenue between N and O
streets, S. E. The sugar making, which began in April,
1798, did not last long, and as the result of litigation between
James Piercy, the mortgagee, and Thomas Law and others
the sale of the property was ordered.*
The close of the first year of the existence of the National Intel-
ligencer was marked by the removal of the office of publication
from New Jersey Avenue and E streets, S. E. to the south side
of Pennsylvania Avenue between 6th and 7th streets, N. W.4
About midway in that block one of three three-story houses was
leased where the printing office was located and also the home of
the editor. For some months ever since the Cabinet had ceased
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 10 and Oct. 22, 1802.
2Same, July 6, 1801. Mr. Herty was not alone in the real estate
business, as Robert W. Peacock, a member of the District bar, adver-
tised lots and houses for sale at his office near the corner of 14th and
F streets. Same, Oct. 21, 1801.
3’ The same, Jan. 30, 1801. The building, which was eight stories
high with a wing of five stories with dimensions of 47 X 46 feet, was oc-
cupied up to the year 1811 by Cornelius Coningham for his brewery
business. It stood for many years a conspicuous landmark, gradually
going toruin, and was torn down in 1847. Greenleaf and Law in the
Federal City, p. 245.
4The same, Noy. 13,1801. In the issue of Oct. 12, 1807, the location
is given as lot 5 and part of lot 4, Square 461.
* USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 435
to appear, the Intelligencer had occupied the Washington news-
paper field, and in its case the patronage of “distant subscribers”
was no doubt an important source of revenue. It was even at
that early period to a large extent the official organ of the ad-
ministration, the medium through which the acts of the execu-
tive were announced, and, what was probably of more conse-
quence to the proprietor, perhaps, where the public notices
and other advertising matter of the executive departments
appeared.' The printing of congress was given out by the
officers of the two houses to such printers, as they might select,”
and as the imprints of the public documents of that period
show, this patronage was divided among a number. Rapine,
Conrad and Co., printers and booksellers, who had followed
Congress from Philadelphia, got a share. So did William Duane,
the editor of the pungent Philadelphia newspaper, the Awrora,
who opened a printing office combined as was quite common
in that day with a book and stationery store at the north-
west corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 6th Street, N. W.*
Here the Apollo Press was located, William Duane and Son,
proprietors.
A Printing and Bookselling Co. was organized for “the pur-
pose of printing and selling books in the city of Washington.” 4
During the summer of 1801, it may be inferred that James Lyon,
1 [ntelligencer, Jan. 1, 1840.
2Same, Jan. 15, 1849.
3 Same, Dee. 11, 1801.
4Same, Aug. 14, 1801. Apparently one of the objects was the
manufacture of paper, for, as the prospectus of the company explained,
“there is not south of Philadelphia any extensive manufactory of
paper or books,”’ yet, ‘‘since the removal of the government to the city
of Washington, the consumption and demand for paper in the District
of Columbia is supposed to be more than would be produced by ten
ordinary paper mills, while there is not one within forty miles of it.”
It was also known as the Franklin Press, and it was there the National
Magazine, or Cabinet of the United States, Richard Dinmore, editor,
was printed.
This enterprise apparently did not survive long. One book at any
rate was issued which had the title, Select and Fugitive Poetry. A
compilation with notes. By Richard Dinmore. Washington City.
Printed at the Franklin Press, 1802. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 4, p. 50.
436 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
who had started in Georgétown the previous fall the short-
lived newspaper, the Cabinet, sought other fields, as the an-
nouncement appeared that the circulating library he had pro-
posed opening on Pennsylvania Avenue “the first door west of
the President’s Square,’”’ would be conducted by Richard Din-
more, who had succeeded to his printing business.! Another cir-
culating library under the management of Hugh Somerville
was found by that gentleman to interfere “with his grocery and
liquor business,”’ and so he notified his patrons that it would be
removed from his residence to the house of John D. Brashiers,
“between the President’s House and the market now erecting on
the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue.” Both Rapine, Conrad
and Co. and William Duane announced through the columns
of the Intelligencer the arrival of supplies of new books, giving
their titles, which apparently indicated the existence of a read-
ing public.* “Folks are most literary here,” states the author
of an article on Washington. “We are going to have [William]
Goodwin’s works printed here,” but nothing more was done
about that publication than the announcement of the proposal to
print. In Georgetown, as in Alexandria, there were two news-
papers, but in the case of these vehicles of information in George-
town, both supported the Federal party, and perhaps that had
something to do with the merging of the two concerns.
Green and English, the publishers of the Museum, a tri-weekly,
sold the paper and their printing office to Rind and Prentiss,
the publishers of the Federalist, a daily. The Museum, after an
existence of six years, made its farewell bow on Jan. 22, 1802,
and the Washington Federalist became the only newspaper
published in Georgetown. In the year 1803 the Federalist
changed from a daily into a tri-weekly.
It was through the initiative taken by the editor of the Intel-
ligencer, who presented a memorial to the senate requesting that
he be assigned a place on the floor, where he could hear in order
1 [ntelligencer, June 23, 1801.
2 Same, Oct. 30, 1801.
3 Same, May 15, June 3, Aug. 19 and Dee. 11, 1801.
* Alexandria Advertiser, May 25,1801. Intelligencer, April 15, 1801.
5 Museum, Jan. 22, 1802.
USE OF DISTRICT PATRONAGE 437
to make a report of the debates, as that was impossible in the
gallery, that for the first time accounts of the discussions in that
body were reported and also published in the newspapers, but
not regularly until after the year 1818.1
1The first reports of the senate debates began in the Intelligencer,
Jan. 8,1802. Alsoin the Annals of Congress. Intelligencer, March 11,
1818.
CHAPTER XVII
UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION
NINE months passed after the inauguration of Mr. Jefferson,
before the first Republican congress assembled. The political
revolution had not checked the growth and development of the
city. There had been an increase of 63 per cent in the number
of buildings since the removal of the government.!
As the members came together in December, 1801, they found
more houses in the city for their accommodation than had been
the experience of their predecessors of the sixth congress. No
change had been made in the cost of living, which was still
found to be higher than in Philadelphia, according to the experi-
ence of two members of the house.” A third member, however,
expressed his dissent and asserted that provisions and labor were
lower than in Philadelphia.’
It was the opinion of one of the congressional observers of the
city that speculation in city lots had led to an inflation in land
values, and in consequence ground for building was not to be had
on moderate terms. The population, it was noted, had been
derived principally “from the more distant states in the Union
and from Europe” and not from the near-by states; thus at an
early date the city received the impress of a cosmopolitan
centre which it has ever since retained.2 To some extent
1 Proceedings of Commissioners, Nov. 25, 1801. Return of Robert
King, Jr., of enumeration of houses in the city by squares. American
State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1, p. 256.
2 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., Ist Sess., pp. 1088, 1089 and 1091.
’ Abraham Bradley, Jr., the assistant postmaster-general, found
that provisions were plentiful and cheaper than in Philadelphia, while
he evidently thought house rent was high. Removal of the Seat of
Government, p. 5, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen., No. 62.
4 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 308.
5 Considerations on the Government of the Territory of Columbia.
A. B. Woodward. No. 8, p. 24.
438
_ UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 439
the rawness and discomforts of a new settlement had been
toned down. A more commodious place of meeting had
been provided for the house of representatives, while, at
the same time, the pressure on the space in the north wing,
where the senate sat, had been relieved. The government
employees continued to serve under the new administration,
as they had under the old, and the unsettling influence of
general removals from office, following a change in the party
administration, was not then a factor in the welfare of the
city.
The clerkships did not fall within the scope of the removals
made by Mr. Jefferson, and so Washington did not suffer from
the spoils system at this period, as was the case years later
when the application was more sweeping.
But to many minds a new era had begun. What had been
wrong in the administration of the government under the
Federal party was to be laid bare, and a committee with a drag-
net commission was appointed by the house to investigate all
public expenditures of the past. Early attention was turned to
the District, and the day after the house convened a committee
was appointed to report on what alterations or amendments
were necessary in its existing laws and regulations. An appre-
hension as to the attitude of the national legislature towards the
District may, no doubt, be traced to some extent in a communi-
cation which appeared some days later in the Intelligencer, the
writer of which, in a satirical vein, suggested that congress
would undoubtedly show an independence of spirit by annulling
acts of the former congress relating to the District merely for
the sake of change. Because large sums of money had been
expended in the new city for the accommodation of the govern-
ment, yet, the writer observed, they need not be deterred by
mere considerations of pitiful economy or a violation of public
faith in taking action to remove the seat of government to
1 An interesting discussion of changes in federal offices for political
reasons appeared in the Jntelligencer of April 15, 1803. The writer
was opposed to general removals. For a further discussion, see the
Intelligencer of June 15, 1803.
440 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
another place.! As the first recorded suggestion at this period
of a change in the location of the capital city, this communica-
tion may be regarded as giving one of the aspects at least of the
current feeling relative to the situation of the District at the
close of the first year since congress began its sittings there.
The removal idea gained ground, and at the next session, what
was generally looked upon as having the same meaning, was a
resolution offered in the house by John Bacon of Massachusetts
declaring the expediency of retroceding to the states of Mary-
land and Virginia the territory of the District.?, But the revolu-
tion pictured by the federalists did not materialize, neither on
the other hand did the triumphant Republicans find dishonesty
in the government of the past. A similar failure in current
expectations may be traced in the course pursued in District
affairs. Instead of undoing what had been done, a disposition
was manifested to give a liberal share of attention to promoting
District interests. The committee appointed by the house to
consider the subject of the government of the District practically
became the committee on the District, as all local matters were
referred to it.
As the variety as well as the number of the subjects demand-
ing the attention of the national legislature were disclosed during
this session in the petitions and memorials from Washington
and Georgetown in their corporate capacity and from citizens,
some of the members began to realize that exclusive legislation,
even over a territory limited to ten miles square, had its responsi-
bilities and burdens as well as conferring dignity and indepen-
dence upon the national government. For during the first
session in the new city, no District matter had been before con-
gress except whether an assumption of the constitutional powers
should be made, and, if assumed, how exercised. But now that
congress had assumed the powers of exclusive legislation, and at
its very first meeting it was promptly made acquainted with the
variety and scope of civic needs as well as with the divergent
points of view of public sentiment in the making. The two
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 18, 1801.
* Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1803, p. 486.
UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 441
towns asked for ampler powers, especially in the exercise of the
right to levy taxes for improvements. Charters of companies
were wanted to build a canal in Washington city, to engage in
the building and selling of houses, while authority or aid was
requested to build a bridge over the Potomac, one over the
Eastern Branch and also “a house for the exercise of public
worship.” One of the District judges asked for additional
compensation, while a resolution was introduced for the estab-
lishment of a chancery court. Then there were questions of the
kind and extent of a local government evoking the clash of
opinion and of interests. i
But another phase of the relations between congress and the
District, and one that proved to be highly irritating to some of
the members of the national legislature was brought out, when
congress found itself the centre of a contest over such a matter
as the erection of a bridge across the Potomac. As stated, this
was the first purely local question of a highly controversial
nature that was fought out in the halls of congress. Members,
wearied with the discussion and impatient to get at subjects in
which they had a more vital or personal concern, cried out that
citizens of the District should settle their difficulties elsewhere,
and that it was neither just nor expedient that the time and
attention of the national legislature should be occupied with
other than national matters. But when, later on, it was pro-
posed to correct the evil, no agreement could be reached.
The remedy of retrocession of the territory, either in whole or
in part, was never favored by more than a scattering minority,
while the other device of delegating to a local government the
powers of congress was never accepted in any adequate form.
Yet while irritation was expressed in the halls of congress at the
necessity of taking time to consider the affairs of the District,
at the same time, the kind of government to be provided for the
District was not, in the winter of 1801-02, a local question in the
sense that it made no appeal to the interest of the members of
congress. For in that matter the initiative came from congress,
and not from the citizens, by the appointment of a committee
early in the session to consider the subject. In the course of
442 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
six weeks a bill providing for a territorial form of government
for the District was reported to the house.’
Two months later, when the bill came up for action, its con-
sideration was postponed for that session, on the ground, as
stated in the house, that its provisions were disagreeable to a
great majority of the people. The Intelligencer adds also that
the provisions would be oppressive and expensive.? No doubt
there were citizens who preferred a legislature of two bodies,
rather than one as provided in the pending bill, and without
question there were decided differences of opinion as to the
degree of representation to be given to different parts of the
District. Then again there were not lacking those who believed
the cost of the proposed form of government would prove bur-
densome to a sparsely settled community. While some of the
citizens, probably few in number, favored a general government
for the District, yet only as a preliminary to its admission to the
federal union, not as a state but “as a represented territory.” *
Both representation in the federal system and a government
for the District were discussed during the first debate in congress
on the District and early in the discussion on the Bacon resolu-
tion they came up again. One of the speakers, who was opposed
to retrocession, said “he looked forward to a period when the
inhabitants from their number and riches would be entitled to a
representation on this floor. And with respect to their local
concerns, when they grew more numerous and wealthy, there
would be no difficulty in giving them a territorial legislature.’ 4
There is no record of any exception taken to the representa-
tion proposed to be given the federal government in all the
territorial schemes of government for the District nor, in fact,
when Washington was incorporated, is there any record showing
opposition to placing the executive power in the hands of a
federal appointee. On the contrary, there is reason to believe
that feature of the local government met with not merely the
1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 463.
* History of the Last Session of Congress. Intelligencer, Aug. 4, 1802.
* Anonymous articles. Intelligencer, Feb. 25 and March 2, 1803.
* Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 488, Feb. 8, 1803.
_UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 443
acquiescence but the actual approval of the citizens. At least,
that was the language of the memorial sent to congress six
months later by the city council. “The plan of city govern-
ment,” it was stated, “adopted for Washington, which institutes
a popular legislative body, associated with a distinct executive
magistrate, meets with the highest approbation of your memora-
lists.” 1 Why a form of government for the District as a whole
was not agreeable to the citizens can only be generally deter-
mined. There is no record that legislation of that sort was
asked for at that time, although a year later a committee ap-
pointed at a meeting of citizens of Washington and Washington
County asked congress to authorize a delegate convention in the
District to frame a form of government.? This action was
considered by the writer of a communication in the Intelligencer
of Feb. 21, 1803, as only equivocal, while, he added, Alexandria
is hostile and Georgetown had withheld codperation. In the
spring of 1802, a few days before the house disposed for the
time of the territorial government bill by postponing action,
the citizens of Washington, as the result of a public meeting,
adopted resolutions praying congress “to grant them a corpora-
tion or such other internal government or police as their present
circumstances may require.” But nothing was said of a govern-
ment for the entire District.2 Congress was informed by a
paper signed by citizens of Alexandria that no form of govern-
ment was favored that would unite the two parts of the Dis-
trict as separated by the Potomac.* Citizens of Georgetown
petitioned the house not to pass the territorial bill until at least
it was so amended as to increase the powers of the corporation.®
Here again, as in the case of the Potomac bridge measure, the
members of the national legislature became aware of the clash of
opinion and of interests among the citizens of the District. The
Intelligencer speaks of “the extreme difficulty and delicacy of the
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1802.
2 The same, Jan. 10 and 14, 1803.
*The same, March 24, 1802; also Annals of Congress, 7th Cong.,
Ist Sess., p. 1087, March 26, 1802.
4 The same, p. 463.
5 The same, p. 475.
444 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
subject,”’ but concludes that a failure of subsequent attempts at
that session was owing “still more, perhaps, to the apathy of
the members.”’!
Some suggestion of the situation may be traced, doubtless, in
the allusions to the people of the District in the course of the
debate on the retrocession resolution, which came up first at
the following session (February, 1803) and was revived two years
later.
During the first discussion, John Randolph of Roanoke de-
clared the interests of the several parts of the territory were as
hostile as any in the union, as it was manifest there was an
Alexandria, a Georgetown and a city interest and even within
the city a Capitol Hill interest and a president’s house interest
which were irreconcilable.
One member asserted in the second retrocession debate that
took place in the house in January, 1805, that “there were as
many interfering interests in this ten-mile square as in the whole
United States.” To show congress was not competent to
legislate for the District, a speaker declared that what with
petitions and counterpetitions “the House is suspended between
two or more jarring interests.” ? On the other hand, it was
freely pointed out that apathy, indifference and ignorance of
of members of congress of District affairs had already pre-
vented the formation of a proper framework of government.
“Whenever a subject which interests the territory of Columbia
is called before either house of congress a universal com-
plaint of want of preparation prevails. Procrastination or
otherwise a precipitate disposition of the subject is the conse-
quence.” ®
An illuminating comment on the subject was made at this
period by the clear-headed and practical John Quincy Adams,
who wrote, “One of the great difficulties in our legislation for
the District of Columbia is that every member of congress
1 History of the Last Session of Congress. Intelligencer, Aug. 4, 1802.
2 Annals of Congress, 8th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 903 and 916.
3 Considerations on the government of the territory of Columbia.
No. 8, p. 12, Jan. 31, 1803.
_ UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 445
brings with him the principles of his own state system, and
these are so different that there is scarcely any common doc-
trine to which appeal in argument can be made.” !
Doubtless the editor of the Intelligencer voiced the sentiments
of a good many citizens when he wrote in indignation of “the
degraded political condition, exhibiting the humiliating spectacle
of a body of citizens deprived of all their political rights.” 2
Such views were not shared by all the members of the Republican
party, of which the /ntelligencer was the organ, or by the presi-
dent, a friend of the editor, which shows that party lines were not
always drawn in District legislation.
It is quite clear that one result of the experience of the first
session as the legislature of the District was to impress on the
minds of some members of congress that the District was a
good deal of a bother and demanded much time. In fact, this
was the second in the list of reasons given by Mr. Bacon for
proposing the retrocession resolutions early in the following
session. It was also an argument freely used by others in the
course of the discussion.
Leaving, as some thought, to the future, the execution of a
plan for a general government for the District — for it should
be borne in mind the proposed territorial government was
not to take the place of town corporations — the house in the
spring of 1802 proceeded to consider a bill to give Washington
a corporate government. An agreement on such a measure
was quickly reached and was readily substituted in the senate for
a measure that had been reported to that body apparently of
the same general character as that of the house territorial bill.
On the 3d of May, 1802, the incorporation bill became a law
and as indicating, as the same feature of the territorial bill did,
the change that had taken place in the Republican party since
its advent to power in its ideas of the relations between the Dis-
trict and the general government, it need only to be observed
that the mayor to whom was given authority to appoint all
city officials was himself appointed by the president. In this
1Memoirs. Vol. 1, p. 422, March 18, 1806.
2 Aug. 4, 1802.
446 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
detail is shadowed forth the distinctive character which the
city has never lost. It was distinguished from the two other
towns of the territory, where the mayors belonged to the group
of ten or more men annually or biennially elected by the prop-
erty holders of the respective places to be the city councils
and on whom authority was conferred to choose from their
number one to serve as mayor.
In other respects Washington’s first city charter was not un-
like those granted to towns in that locality. The right to vote
and to hold office was limited, as was common at that period,
to those who owned property. It is quite apparent the Re-
publicans who then and later on in the discussion of District
affairs expressed feelings of abhorrence at the spectacle of a
community without a voice in the making of laws, which they
were obliged to obey, did not so regard a community where a
selected few had the right of suffrage.
It is curious to read the furious and then again the pathetic
protests in the discussion on District affairs against continuing
a community of slaves in the bosom of freedom and at the same
time to realize that the speakers came from communities where
less than one fifth of the entire population had any voice in
public affairs and who as legislators for the District deprived
citizens from having part in their local government who were
not the owners of property. In this particular phase of the
form of government provided for Washington, as with others,
congress made no experiments, but gave the citizens a municipal
charter usual at that period. At that time the charter of
Georgetown granted by the Maryland legislature permitted
no citizen to vote unless he had “visible property.”! The
Virginia legislature in granting a charter to Alexandria limited
the exercise of the franchise to “freeholders and housekeepers.’’ ”
When in the year 1804 congress granted to both Alexandria and
Georgetown charters amended and enlarged, the restrictions
as to suffrage were not removed. So it is apparent that some
1 Act to incorporate Georgetown. Laws of Maryland, Dec. 25, 1789.
? An act for incorporating the town of Alexandria. Laws of Vir-
ginia, Oct. 4, 1779.
UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 447
of the opinions advanced in the debates on the District were
ahead of the prevailing practice of the day. At the same time
there may be traced in the discussions during the seventh and
eighth congresses, the beginnings of a public sentiment on the
subject of the elective franchise that was destined to crystallize
in the general adoption in the states of manhood suffrage. But
the discussion of District topics in congress, then as now, was
no doubt seized upon as an occasion for speeches intended
mainly for home consumption.
In another respect the provision made for the government of
Washington clashed with much that was said on the floor of
the house on District affairs during this period. For by giving
to the United States representation in the local government, a
distinctive mark was set on the city and federal power was
asserted and in both particulars, the tendency was directly op-
posed to the views of those members who saw in a district where
congress only was supreme, the possibilities for the exercise
and development of tyrannical power. The same principle
of federal representation is also to be found in the various Dis-
trict territorial schemes. Where in one plan only a legislature
was provided, the president of the United States was given the
veto, as well as all executive functions. But in another form
where a governor without a legislature was provided, then the
office was to be filled by the president. This recurrence or
assertion of the principle of federal supremacy in the form of
government for the District as well as that provided for the
city of Washington had the acquiescence of a majority of the
members of congress and of the citizens.!
It is probably more than a mere coincidence that in the very
next session following that of the winter of 1801-1802, at which
time the national legislature for the first time had an oppor-
tunity of learning something of the volume of legislation ex-
pected by the people of the District and the difficulties and exas-
perations in the way of gratifying in whole or in part such wishes,
the Bacon retrocession resolutions were introduced. But it
1 Territorial bills in full. Intelligencer, Feb. 5 and 16, 1802, and
Feb. 16, 1803.
448 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
was found after quite a lengthy debate that such a measure
represented the views of only a small proportion of the mem-
bers.! Nearly two years later, in the winter of 1805, a resolution
similar in its character was brought before the house, and after
a debate which was the longest held up to that time on District
affairs was defeated by a majority nearly equal to the entire
number of votes cast for it.’
On both occasions the constitutional relation of the federal
government and of the District was elaborately discussed, and
it was debated if both the United States and the two states,
parties to the cession of the territory agreed, could not the
status of the territory be restored as it was before the cession ?
The claim was made that the acquisition of the territory was
the result of a contract, and that another contract was made
when the United States bargained with the landowners.
But aside from such a consideration, there arose the ques-
tion of expediency. It was evident to a number of members
that time, trouble and expense would be saved the United
States by getting rid of legislative responsibility over the
District.
There were not wanting, however, those who attributed the
zeal of some of the advocates of retrocession largely to the ex-
pectation that a removal of the seat of government would
follow, and that the new location would suit better the interests
they represented than the one chosen by the first president and
the first congress. In fact, retrocession and removal in contem-
porary thought were quite generally regarded as synonymous,
although some of the advocates of the former course maintained
that it did not include the latter. The unsettling influence
of the retrocession agitation upon the values of property in the
1 At this period an association was formed of citizens of Washing-
ton opposed to retrocession and in favor of a subordinate government,
constituting a central body with branch associations in the several
parts of the city. Intelligencer, Dec. 31, 1804.
2 Annals of Congress, 8th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 874 et seq.
’ The much-disputed question whether a retrocession of the District
is constitutional has never come before the Supreme Court, although
the Virginia portion was retroceded in 1846.
_UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 449
District as well as upon plans for the improvement of the city
was pointed out by more than one speaker. There is no ques-
tion but that any uncertainty asto the permanency of the national
seat had the effect of a cloud on land values and served to check
progress and discourage interest. Such an effect followed, even
after it was found that those who favored retrocession were
only a small minorityin congress. The mere agitation, however,
was hurtful in the case of an enterprise that from the outset
led but a feeble and precarious existence and was not nurtured
by a large influx of people and an expanding trade. For it is
quite evident the fear of what congress might do had then, as
it has continued to have, an influence on local interests that was
real enough, even though the apprehensions created were never
realized. More significant, perhaps, than the action in voting
down the removal resolution was a single clause at the end of a
general act concerning the city of Washington.' The language
was curiously indefinite, for it appropriated $50,000 to be used
“in such repairs and alterations in the capitol and other public
buildings as may be necessary for the accommodation of con-
gress in their future sessions and also for keeping in repair the
highway between the capitol and other public buildings.” But
the intent of congress was clearly understood to be a provision
for beginning the erection of the south wing of the capitol, and
that was done.”
Thus early in the relations between congress and the District
was the emphasis placed upon the principle which is the recog-
1 Stats., 2, 236. March 3, 1803.
2The significance of such a course was recognized at the time.
Thomas Law, in a pamphlet ‘‘ Observations on the Intended Canal in
Washington City,’’ Washington, 1804, p. 7, observes, ‘‘Last year
Congress, by voting a sum of money for the capitol and by resolving
not to alter the plan of the city, banished forever all doubts, and in
consequence more houses have been built since that decisive crisis than
in any preceding year.’’ Also an article in the Jntelligencer, May 18,
1807, in favor of opening the canal. ‘‘We have not to apprehend,”’ ob-
serves the writer, ‘‘the capriciousness of an individual, for Congress,
notwithstanding bad accommodations and numerous inconveniences,
has continued here annually voting appropriations to evince their
good will, their stability and the wisdom of their first choice of a
central spot.”
VoL. I—2@a
450 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
nized groundwork of judicial interpretation, that in the laws
placed on the statute books and not in the debates must be
traced the mind of congress.
It is quite evident that Jefferson understood the far-reaching
effect of this legislation, for a few days after he had affixed his
signature to the bill, in writing to Benjamin H. Latrobe to offer
him the place of surveyor of the public buildings, he adds, “I
have no doubt congress at the next session will give another
$50,000, which will complete that wing inside and out in the
year 1804.” !
The president’s forecast proved to be correct, and congress
continued its annual appropriations until the south wing was
erected and the north wing reconstructed, a period stretching
over eight years and ending with the year 1811. He was, how-
ever, greatly out of the way as to the time, for it was not until the
fallof 1807 that the house was able to meet in the new chamber,
a period of some four years.” For a year prior to the spring of
1803 there had been no public work going on in Washington.
The board of commissioners with their architect or superin-
tendent of public buildings had been abolished, and the federal
interests of the city had been intrusted to a superintendent, who
succeeded to the powers of the board of commissioners and its
empty treasury. He had done nothing, as there had been no
new legislation. The coming of Latrobe in such a capacity to
the city marked an important epoch in its history, not so much
from the personality of the man as because of the public policy
he represented. There was no provision in the law for the
appointment of an architect or superintendent of building, but
Jefferson, with that broad construction of the letter of the law
1 Letter dated March 6, 1803, and quoted in the History of the
United States Capitol, p. 33, and where in subsequent pages the details
of the construction of the south wing and the changes in the north
are given, together with a discussion of the pamphlet war waged by
Latrobe against Dr. Thornton and his design, and also against the
members of congress and the newspapers who criticised the work as
too slow and too expensive.
2 The amount of money spent on the south wing alone from 1803
to 1807 was $216,016.
. UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 451
which led him to advise Washington that while the residence
law of 1790 did not specifically state a city was to be built,
thought the authority to do so was implied in the language
of the statute which authorized the president to accept land
and provide buildings for the accommodation of the govern-
ment. So in the first instance a city was planned and laid out,
and again thirteen years later Jefferson, three days after he had
affixed his signature to a law which merely appropriated a bulk
sum for “repairs and alterations in the capitol and other public
buildings” and for keeping in repair Pennsylvania Avenue be-
tween the capitol and the president’s house, made the appoint-
ment of an architect or superintendent.1
Latrobe, to whom he wrote, was no stranger, for in the previous
year he had come to the city at the request of the president
from his home in Philadelphia, where he was successfully practis-
ing his profession as architect and engineer as he had done in
his native country of England, in order that he might report
on a pet plan of the president’s for a dry dock in the city of
Washington and supplying it with water. He had stopped
in the city on his way to Philadelphia in the year 1798,
two years after he had come to this country, and he recorded
then his opinion of the north wing, “that while it is faulty
in external detail, it is one of the first designs of modern
times.” * After he was placed in charge of the south wing
with instructions from Jefferson that he “should deviate as
little as possible from the plan approved by General Washing-
ton,” * he then declared that except a few details, all his ideas
of good taste and even of good sense in architecture were shocked
by the style of the capitol building.* It is not surprising that
Dr. Thornton, the author of the design, who was placed at
1 As the president expressed it in the letter to Latrobe, he revived
the office of surveyor of public buildings, but as no such office existed,
this use of the word revived is characteristic.
2 Journal of Latrobe, p. 92. New York, 1905.
3 A private letter to the individual members of congress on the sub-
ject of the public buildings. B. Henry Latrobe. Washington. S. H.
Smith. 1806.
4 The same, p. 18.
452 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the head of the patent office ‘after the board of city commis-
sioners was abolished, was nettled and also grieved when he
heard and read Latrobe’s rather savage assaults upon his design,
for when Latrobe was in the city on the business of the proposed
naval dry docks, Dr. Thornton stated Latrobe “often compli-
mented me on the plan of the capitol.” ! As far as the exterior
design of the south wing was concerned, Latrobe was helpless,
as it must conform to that of the north wing. As to the main
feature of the interior, the chamber of the house, he declares,
“a respect for the opinion of General Washington produced
a positive direction to me that the principal feature of the hall,
colonnade and surrounding gallery should be preserved. This
I did,” he adds, “against my wishes and judgment, reduc-
ing the number of columns from thirty-six to twenty-four.” ?
He did succeed in changing the elliptical form of the chamber
of the house into a room with semicircular ends and straight
sides. The acoustics proved to be bad, but this defect was in
part remedied by hanging curtains between the stone columns
of the colonnades.* In spite of the foible of the Thornton affair,
Latrobe was a man of ability in his profession as well as having a
wide range in the field of knowledge. His merits were recog-
nized, not only in his governmental work, but in the many im-
portant private enterprises with which he was connected. For
eight years he continued in the public service, with a widening
scope of duties. When the damage wrought by the British
invasion was to be made good, Latrobe was again called upon,
and served for some two years. A month after his appoint-
ment Latrobe selected John Lenthal as clerk of the works, or
superintendent, an important post in this instance, as the ar-
chitect was away from the city frequently in connection with his
1 History of the United States Capitol, p. 35. In an addenda to his
pamphlet, p. 4, Latrobe declares that this remark to Thornton ‘‘was
only one of my polite ambiguities, and I only said so to flatter him into
a friendly wish to see me appointed [surveyor of public buildings] for
it never was my opinion.”
* Latrobe’s letter to the editor. Intelligencer, March 17, 1812.
’ Latrobe’s report, March 25, 1808. American State Papers,
Vol. 1, Miscella., p. 719.
. UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 453
duties as engineer of the proposed canal to connect the waters
of the Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay.
The summer and fall of 1803 passed, and when the members
of the house assembled in December, they met as usual in the
temporary brick building erected on a portion of the site of the
south wing. After the adjournment of congress in 1804 “the
Oven,” as it was termed, was removed, and by the middle of
summer the walls of the new structure were above the ground.
In the course of three years the house, which had been holding
its sessions in its first meeting place, the room on the west
front of the north wing, was in its new chamber.?
It was by no means complete. The woodwork had only
received a priming coat of paint. The hot-air furnaces and
the odor of fresh paint rendered the air disagreeable, while
it was almost impossible for the members to hear what was said.*
But money was more abundant than when the north wing
was built. Stone columns and brick arches and carved friezes
replaced the columns of wood and plaster, and the wooden
floor beams and plain walls that were in the latter structure.
While this change marked an advance in durable construction,
still the period had not been reached in the history of the build-
ing when marble was used. The softer and cheaper sandstone
was employed in the interior work as well as for the exterior
walls, but in the former it was carved with decorative designs,
the first seen in an American public building.* For this pur-
1 Mr. Lenthal was killed in September, 1808, by the fall of a brick
vault in the supreme court room.
2 Intelligencer, Oct. 27,1807. ‘‘The hall of the House of Represent-
atives was on this day opened for the first time,’’ Congress having
met in extra session.
3 In the senate chamber open fireplaces were in use, and at times the
room was uncomfortably cold. John Quiney Adams notes in his
Memoirs that Jan. 22, 1805, was ‘‘excessively cold. In the senate
not much attention was paid to the business, most of the members
being almost all day at the firesides in the lobby.” Vol. 1, p. 337.
4 Journal of Latrobe, p. 142. It was probably a slip of the pen on
the part of Latrobe in preparing a report on the state of the building
after the fire when he refers to ‘‘the marble columns”’ in the Senate
chamber as burnt to lime by the heat of the flames. There is no other
reference to the use of this material in the capitol prior to this period.
American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 2, p. 427, Feb. 28, 1817.
454 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
pose two Italian sculptors were brought to this country. In
the spring of 1806 Giuseppe Franzoni and Giovanni Andrei
were at work, the former in carving an eagle in stone that was
given a place in the frieze of the house, while he also modelled
a statue of Liberty which was placed between the columns of
the colonnade back of the speaker’s chair.!- To Andrei fell the
work of carving the capitals of the columns and adorning the
frieze. Then in the season of 1808-1809 the wooden construc-
tion on the east side of the north wing was replaced by arches
of brick and with stone work, so that when the British applied
the torch to the building, the capitals of the free stone pillars in
the basement devised by Latrobe to represent corn-stalks, the
“corn cob capitals,”’ as he states they were named by members
of congress, were saved from destruction, due to the protection
of the arched brick flooring. A radical change was made in
the interior plan, as the floor of the senate chamber and its
offices was raised from the basement level to that of the first
floor. The work began in June, 1808, before the session of the
senate closed, and temporary quarters were provided for that
body in a room on the same floor, but on the west front under
the library. As the room south of the old senate chamber
occupied from the beginning by the supreme court and the
circuit court of the District was also dismantled, the former
met for the 1809 term in the library room, which had been
fitted up with rough seats, benches and enclosures for its accom-
modation.”. The supreme court adjourned before the senate
met in extra session in May, 1809. The temporary arrangement
of the library for the court was changed and the room fitted
for the use of the senate. By the following winter the new
senate chamber was ready, and so was the court room on the
basement floor directly under it, so that the term of 1810 was
the first held in that room, which became historic as the home
‘The figure was in plaster. Latrobe’s description of the interior.
Intelligencer, Nov. 30, 1807.
? Report of the committee to confer with the surveyor of the public
buildings. Feb. 18, 1809. The wooden construction of the interior
of the west section of the north wing, and its roof covered with shingles,
were not changed.
- UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 455
for so many years of the first tribunal of the land. The circuit
court of the District also resumed its sittings in the capitol
building after an absence of about a year and a half, occupy-
ing, as it had, from the day of its organization, the same room
as the supreme court. During the time it was away from the
capitol the court held its sessions in the tavern in Carroll Row
on Ist Street between East Capitol and A streets, S. E.1 The
clerk’s office, which at that period and for many years later also
included the office for the recording of deeds, had quarters
away from those occupied by the court. Apparently soon after
the first change was made in the clerkship, and William Brent
succeeded Uriah Forrest, who had died,” the office was removed
from the western section of the city to Capitol Hill and presum-
ably in the vicinity of the capitol. As far as known, no change
was made in the general location until after the invasion of
the city.
In the meantime changes had taken place in the personnel of
the court. On the 25th of November, 1803, Nicholas Fitzhugh
of Fairfax County, Va., was confirmed by the senate to fill the
vacancy caused by the resignation of James Marshall.* After
a service of five years the chief judge, William Kilty, was ap-
pointed chancellor of Maryland. William Cranch was ad-
vanced to his place, and the vacancy on the bench was filled by
the appointment of Allen B. Duckett of Maryland.? Upon
his death some three years later he was succeeded by Buckner
Thurston, then forty-six years of age, who at that time had only
served about half his term as senator from Kentucky.® Judge
1 Legal notices stating the court room was in Lindsay’s and in
Long’s hotel. Intelligencer, June 15, 1808 (a notice in the issue of
June 8 gives the usual address) and Feb. 13, 1809, also a notice in
the issue of Dec. 27, 1809, that the court room was in the capitol.
2 Same, July 17, 1805. 3 Same, May 21, 1806.
4 The new judge had recently represented his county in the Virginia
house of delegates. He served until his death in 1814.
5’ Appointed March 17, 1806, and died in August, 1809. His house-
hold furniture and library of law, history and belles lettres were adver-
tised to be sold at public auction at the late residence on K Street, be-
tween 26th and 27th streets, N. W. Intelligencer, Sept. 11, 1809.
6 Intelligencer, Dec. 18, 1809.
456 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Thurston was a native of Virginia, but when a young man had
gone to Kentucky, where he took anactive part in public affairs.
In the year 1805 he was appointed federal judge of the territory
of New Orleans, but he was also chosen to represent the state
of Kentucky in the senate of the United States. He accepted
the latter place, but gave it up before he had completed his
term, in order to take the judicial place in the District. He
was succeeded in the senate by Henry Clay.
After the year 1810 no further large appropriations were
made for the capitol building, and the two wings, practically
completed and connected by a wooden covered way, were left
until the return of more peaceful times and an improvement
in the public finances, which were being drained to supply
the army and the navy and to resist the growing encroachments
of England.!. The building was in this state when it was
destroyed in the war of 1812.
Jefferson’s confidence in the course that congress would pur-
sue in continuing the work of preparing a suitable place for its
deliberations as well as for other public needs in the District
was so well grounded that he did not hesitate to use nearly one-
fourth of the entire appropriation of 1803 upon the improvement
of Pennsylvania Avenue between the capitol and the presi-
dent’s house. In addition to the personal supervision which he
gave to the work of Latrobe, there can be but little doubt that it
was his plan which was carried out in what was done on Penn-
sylvania Avenue. The broad surface was divided into three
sections marked with four rows of trees, an arrangement that
suggested the Paris boulevards. In the centre ran the principal
road with rows of Lombardy poplars on each side, then two road-
ways, the outer edges bordered by trees of the same species.
Beyond the second row of trees came the gutters, and then the
footways extending to the building line. There were no under-
ground drains. The surface water from the side streets and
the gutters was carried across the surface of the avenue in
broad drains, which in process of time became gullies of irregu-
' Report of the committee on the president’s message communicat-
ing a report of the surveyor of the public buildings. Jan. 11, 1810.
- UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 457
lar depth.! In all $11,702 was spent on the avenue at this
time.”
Nearly thirty years passed, and the avenue remained as Jeffer-
son planned it. No federal money was spent on it except in the
year 1807, when the roadway was widened and drains were
built. Its maintenance and care was left to the city. But
even the large sum for that day expended in 1803-1804 was not
sufficient to provide any kind of paving. The surface of the
road was covered with gravel, as was done in the case of streets
improved by the city authorities. In the summer the dust flew,
and in the winter the mud was deep. But the trees flourished
and were much admired, although they were not shade trees.
A year had hardly gone after the improvements had been com-
pleted, when the first inaugural procession passed up Penn-
sylvania Avenue, a modest precursor of street pageants that
have no equal in this country for elaborateness and striking
detail. Jefferson’s second inaugural was even simpler in its
outward form than the first. It is a singular circumstance so
little attention was given to this event that the only contempo-
rary account of Jefferson’s going to the capitol is to be found in
a personal letter written by a secretary of the English legation.
“On the 4th,’ so the narrative runs, “he proceeded on horse-
back from the Palace, which is of white stone and the largest
building here, and attended by his secretary and groom rode up
11t is impossible to state more in detail the work done on Pennsyl-
vania Avenue at this time, as no report was made. During this period
the superintendent of the city disbursed all money expended for public
purposes in the city, unless, as in the case of the jail, congress other-
wise directed. The progress of the work on the public buildings was
detailed in annual reports which Mr. Latrobe made to the president
and which were transmitted to congress and printed. The superin-
tendent of the city sent his accounts to the treasury, where they were
audited. As Latrobe had nothing to do with the Pennsylvania Avenue
improvement, only a reference to the amount spent is found in his report
for the year following the execution of the work. Message from the
president of the United States transmitting a report of the surveyor
of the public buildings. Feb. 22, 1804.
2 Message from the President of the United States transmitting
accounts, stating the several sums spent to date in Washington.
Dec. 23, 1806. Report of Thomas Munroe, superintendent of the
city.
458 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the long Avenue of Pennsylvania to the Capitol, which is an
unfinished rival in stone of the Roman building of that name,
and dressed in black and silk stockings delivered a speech ete.”’ !
After the delivery of the speech the oath of office was admin-
istered, and on leaving the capitol the president was attended
“by a large assemblage of members of the legislature, citizens
and strangers of distinction, and a procession was formed at
the navy yard composed of the several mechanics engaged
there, which marched to military music, displaying with con-
siderable taste the various insignia of their profession.” ?
At the president’s house a large company assembled to offer
their congratulations and good wishes.* With the reception
the ceremonies of the day came to a close. This function was
spoken of by the English observer as a levee, and evidently
in some disgust states that “all who chose attended and even
towards the close,” he adds with what must have been a purely
imaginative touch, “blacks and dirty boys who drank his wines
and lolled upon his couches before us all.”
In striking contrast to the large allotment of the bulk ap-
propriation for Pennsylvania Avenue was the sum expended on
the president’s house. Less than two thousand dollars was
used, and yet the walls of the apartments of the eastern section
of the house were still unplastered. The grounds were rough
and neglected, temporary wooden steps were at the principal
entrances, and the roof leaked badly. There were no outbuild-
ings so necessary at that period for the storing of fuel and
1The Two Duchesses. Augustus Foster to Frederick Foster.
Washington, July 1, 1805, p. 229. Mr. Foster omits to state that the
inaugural ceremonies were held in the senate chamber.
2 Intelligencer, March 6, 1805. Henry Adams states, Jefferson ‘‘ap-
peared at the capitol escorted with due formalities by a procession of
militia men and other citizens.’”’ Vol. 3, p. 1.
3 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. 1, p. 373. It is probable
the long strain of the impeachment trial of Judge Chase, which had
occupied the time and attention of the senate since the beginning of
the year and had ended only on March 1, had something to do with
the lack of interest displayed in the inauguration. Mr. Adams records
March 3, “‘that Congress was obliged to sit this day, though a Sunday,”
owing to the delay in the business caused by the trial.
- UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 459
other domestic supplies, and in fact the house lacked many of
the conveniences then looked upon as essential for comfortable
living. However, the next year the slate roof was replaced by
one of sheet iron and one of the bedrooms was finished.! Each
year as the work went on at the capitol something was done at
the president’s house to make it more livable, and as Latrobe
was in charge of both buildings there was no official friction.
After the building had been made secure from the weather in
the year 1804, the following season witnessed the erection of
what were termed “the offices,’ a long range of one-story
structures on either side of the main building, that on the west
side forming the foundations of the terrace of to-day. These
wings contained a meat house, cellar for liquors, coals and wood
and privies.2 At the end of the eastern range a stable was
erected in the year 1806, which was intended only for temporary
use and to remedy the inconvenience of the one located at such
a distance as the southeast corner of 14th and G streets,
N. W.3 It was not until the fourth year after a beginning was
made to complete the house that attention was given to the
improvement of the grounds. Then the post and rail fence was
replaced in part by a low stone wall, and also a portion of the
grounds was levelled. At this time a more direct communica-
tion between the capitol and the executive departments was
made by opening a road from 15th Street, south of the treasury
office and the president’s house to 17th Street. The road passed
just south of the new stone wali, and is preserved to-day in the
road that nearly bisects the lawn south of the house. In later
years the vegetable garden was south of the wall and road.
During the year 1808 the wall about the grounds was practically
1 Message of the President of United States communicating a report
of the surveyor of public buildings, Dec. 6, 1804.
2Same, Dec. 27, 1805. The colonnade that faced them was not
supplied until 1807. The eastern wing was removed about the year
1870.
3Same, Dee. 15, 1806. A carriage house near the stables was
built in 1809.
4Same, March 25, 1808. Also in American State Papers, Vol. 1,
Diiies
460 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
completed, and a flight of stone steps, a bridge and a platform
over the area of the north front were made.’ Attention was
given to the grounds the following year, and that work, as well
as various minor improvements in the house, left the property
in the state when it was destroyed. The final report of Latrobe
on the condition of the capitol and the president’s house was
made at the close of the year 1809 and at the beginning of his
last term of service for that period.2 The arrangement of the
principal floor of the house is shown in a drawing made by La-
trobe in 1803 and now preserved in the library of congress. It
was then as Hoban planned it and as it stands to-day, restored
to the original form in the year 1902. But Latrobe felt he
could improve on Hoban’s plan, and accordingly in the year
1807 prepared a sketch which he believed would solve the ob-
jections he said were raised against the present arrangement
of the space and make it more suitable for its double use as a
public building and for the accommodation of a family. There
is no further reference to the proposed changes. It is interesting
to note that in the same year Latrobe prepared his plan for the
alterations in the interior plan of the president’s house, he
also made a design for the centre portion of the capitol building.
On each front he proposed to have an extensive portico and on
the east a flight of steps leading to the principal story.4. But
these steps were within a pillared portico and not entirely on
the exterior of the building as in the design which was eventually
carried out.
It was while the senate was still occupying the library room
that the inauguration of James Madison was held in 1809.
1 Report of the surveyor of the public buildings, Dec. 21, 1808.
2 American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 2, p. 16.
3 Report of the committee appointed to ascertain the expenditures
and probable estimates in relation to the public buildings, Dec. 21,
1808. The plan referred to in the report of Latrobe and made a part
of the committee report is in the library of congress and appears to-
gether with his drawing of the then existing arrangement in the report
Restoration of the White House. 57th Cong., 2d Sess., Senate No.
197.
*Thesame. This design is reproduced in the History of the Capitol,
p. 44.
* UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION 461
For the first time in the new city the oath of office to the
incoming president was not administered in the senate chamber.
The new room of the house of representatives, then in use for
but a little more than a year, was chosen as the stage for the
event which marked the close of the public career of Thomas
Jefferson and the beginning of what proved to be eight years
of service of James Madison, who was regarded as Jefferson’s
choice. The function, so simple in its official detail, had already
begun to draw to it people eager to see and to hear. “ For many
days before,” so runs the chronicle of the day,! “citizens from
the adjacent and even remote states had been pouring into
the city until its capacity of accommodation was strained to
the utmost.’ Clearly the library room in the west front would
be too small to accommodate even a reasonable proportion of
the thronging crowds, and no doubt the temporary fittings in
a plain rocm, contrasting with the dignity and the richness of
the setting of the new chamber of the house, further empha-
sized the necessity of making the change.
As the day dawned on the 4th of March, a federal salute was
fired from the guns at the navy yard and at Fort Warburton,
as Fort Washington was then called. Several hours before
noon, the time fixed for the ceremony at the capitol, the house
was filled, and as the historian of the event looked out from the
windows of the capitol and saw the people gathered about the
building, they seemed to him to number 10,000. The presi-
dent-elect was escorted from his house on the site of 1333-1335
F Street, N.W., where he had lived as secretary of state,
by the troops of cavalry of Washington and Georgetown.
Upon his return from the capitol President Madison had the
escort of nine voluntary military companies of the District.
When he reached his home, he held a large reception and refresh-
ments were served.”
In the evening the festivities were for the first time in the
history of such events continued, and took the form of a ball.
Under the heading, “Inauguration ball,” a notice had appeared
1 Intelligencer, March 6, 1809.
2 Adams Memoirs, Vol. 1, p. 546.
462 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in the Intelligencer some days previously,! that “a dancing
assembly will be held on the 4th inst., at Mr. Long’s Hotel.
Tickets to be obtained at the bar on application to a manager.”’?
But the retiring president was not overlooked. He occupied
a seat in the house on the right of the chair, and when the
speech had been delivered, Jefferson joined with the throng
of citizens who called on the new president at his home. That
duty performed, Jefferson returned to the president’s house,
which he continued to occupy for some days before he went
to his Virginia home. Here he held a large reception, and in
the evening attended the ball, where he mingled with the
throng, which was said to number four hundred and of which
Mrs. Madison was the centre, as she had been of social affairs
in the city and continued to be for many years later.2 Among
those who called on Jefferson on inaugural day were delega-
tions representing citizens of Washington and Georgetown,
expressing to him their good wishes.
1 Jntelligencer, March 1, 1809.
2 The list of managers appended to this notice contained the fol-
lowing names : —
Thos. Tingey William Brent
John P. Van Ness John Graham
Franklin Wharton A. Henderson
Daniel Carroll James Hakin
John Tayloe John Lacy
James H. Blake Isaac A. Coles
N.B. The dancing will commence at 7 o’clock precisely.
‘First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 60. Mrs. Smith says
the dancing continued until 12 o’clock, when the music ceased. Ac-
cording to the account in the Intelligencer, the list of invited guests
was confined to the president, the ex-president and the foreign
ministers.
4 Intelligencer, March 6, 1809.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
In addition to the claims made by the advocates of retro-
cession as to what they intended to do, the interests of the city
received another serious check through a motion made in the
house, which, however, was not adopted, to concentrate the
public buildings.!. A change in the location of the public
buildings was looked upon then as almost as disastrous as a
removal, for property values in the vicinity of public reserva-
tions were determined largely by such proximity.2, A judgment
on congress in its dealings with the District was expressed
by A. B. Woodward in the last of the series of essays on the
government of the District. The essay was finished the last
day of January, 1803, and while then all hope had not been
abandoned that congress might still provide a general govern-
ment for the District, yet it had not done so and no notice had
been taken by that body of what Mr. Woodward regarded
as of the most vital consequence to the District, and that was
an amendment to the constitution so as to enable the District
to have representatives on the floor of congress as well as in
the electoral college.
Congress had been content with providing a municipal
government for Washington city, which Mr. Woodward had
not advocated, and therefore it would only be human if in his
last contribution to the discussion of the proper form of govern-
ment for the District and its place in the federal system, there
should have crept in some bitterness of spirit. “The whole
1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 494. Report of
Committee, Feb. 13, 1803. American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1,
p. 344. ;
2 Considerations on the government of the territory of Columbia,
No. 8, p. 21.
463
464 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
history of the city of Washington,” he exclaims, “exhibits
the effects of governmental inconstancy.”’
One result, as he points out, is that most of the individuals,
who have trusted to their expectations, have been the victims of
their own confidence. Many of these men have been ruined,
he asserted, while the resources of others are now mostly un-
productive. The records of the Maryland court, he asserted,
as well as those of the circuit court of the District, bear ample
evidence of the financial straits to which a number of the
men most largely interested as property holders in the city
were reduced at this period.
Restoring the District to the states which had ceded it, even
including the ground where the public buildings had been
erected, although in the discussion of the second retrocession
measure it was proposed to except the city of Washington,
was the only immediate solution offered in congress of the
political problem presented by the District. But such a course
had the approval of but few. On the other hand there were
those who predicted a bright future for the District, and some
went so far as to assert that after a while, when population
increased, then the District might be given a place in the federal
system.
The unreality of the descriptive term of slaves, applied in the
course of the discussion in the house to the citizens of the
District, was pointed out by a debater, who exclaimed that one
might almost expect from what was said, “to have his ears
assailed with the harsh, grating sound of fetters and the clank-
ing of chains on going out into the streets.”” On the contrary,
he assured his hearers, he found the citizens contented and
happy, pursuing their usual avocations and enjoying the fruit
of their labor under the protection of mild and equable laws.!
The emphasis placed on the loss of political rights gives that
phase of opposition the chief prominence in the first years of
the agitation, which began in February, 1803, and ended two
years later. When the agitation was again resumed in 1808,
the point of attack was shifted. It then centred upon the
1 Annals of Congress, 8th Cong., 2d Sess., January, 1805, p. 933.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 465
inconvenience to members of congress in having to live in a
city like Washington, so destitute, was the complaint, of com-
forts and facilities and yet where the cost of living was so
high. The resolution upon which a debate running through a
week was based came frankly to the point by providing that
the seat of government be removed to Philadelphia.’ It
was urged by one speaker in favor of such a course that the
city was fifteen years old, and was still in its infancy. The
plan on which it is laid out was criticised as impracticable.
All the inhabitants, it was urged, if gathered in one spot, would
not be able to pay the expenses of paving, lighting and watching
the avenues and streets, because of their great width. How
long, asked another speaker, are we to go on through dirt and
mire before we are able to perceive that Washington can never
be a city?
But in addition to these material considerations another
speaker was unwilling further to witness such an exhibition
of American debasement as citizens without the right of fran-
chise, and more especially, when, as in the case of District
residents, they were willing enough to yield that privilege
in consideration of the pecuniary advantages derived from
being near the government. However, it was the hopeless
prospects of the place that were dwelt on and emphasized by
most of the opposition. All around, it was asserted, are pre-
mature symptoms of decay, so many houses built, not inhab-
ited but tumbling into ruins. A resemblance to the ruins of
Palmyra was traced by a speaker in the appearance of Morris
Village, as the cluster of unfinished houses built by Morris and
his associates was termed. The principal business of the
place, it was asserted, was the keeping of boarding-houses.
The debate became discursive, and finally the house refused to
continue it and so the subject was dropped without a vote
having been reached, and it was not taken up in congress again
1 Annals of Congress, 10th Cong., Ist Sess., 1807-1808, p. 1531.
There was only one reference to the subject during the ninth congress,
when a resolution to retrocede the jurisdiction to Maryland and Vir-
ginia was offered, but no further action was taken. Annals of Congress,
9th Cong., lst Sess., p. 457.
voL.I—2H
466 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
for more than six years or until after the destruction of the city
by the British. It is probable the author of a communication
to the Intelligencer some fifteen years after the first stage of the
removal agitation had been passed expressed the contemporary
opinion when he wrote that “the attempts to remove the
capital would have been successful if the adversaries of Wash-
ington could have agreed among themselves as to the place
of their future residence and if it had not been distinctly under-
stood that President Jefferson and President Madison, under
whose administrations these attempts were made, were deter-
mined to place their veto on such an act.” ? No doubt the
attacks on the city, and more especially the criticisms of its
growth and development, so much slower than had been antici-
pated, were influential with the city council in directing in the
year 1803, and then again in 1807, the city treasurer, who
was also the collector of taxes, to take a census of the city,
the only period in its history when two enumerations of the
inhabitants were made in a census decade. It was shown,
by the count of 1803, that the city contained 4352 souls,
an increase of 1142 since the census of 1800, while four years
later the total was 5652, an increase of 1300.*
Two days after the act of May 3, 1802, became a law, pro-
viding a corporate form of government for the city of Wash-
ington, a call appeared in the Intelligencer for a meeting of
mechanics “to consult upon proper characters” for members
of the city council. This was followed by notices to the citi-
zens generally for meetings for a similar purpose, and also
through the same medium lists of names of citizens were sub-
mitted for the approval of their peers on the day of the elec-
tion. A more direct method was adopted by holding meetings,
1 The editor of the Alexandria Daily Gazette, in commenting upon
the federal census of Washington just completed, showing a population
of 8620, stated: “It has been about seven years in doubling. One
cause of the slow growth has been the iniquitous proposition to remove
the seat of government. We presume that this question has gone to
sleep forever.”” Reprinted in the Intelligencer, Nov. 24, 1810.
2 Intelligencer, March 11, 1824.
’ The same, May 9, 1804, and Sept. 30,1808. The census of 1800
gave 3120 as the population of Washington.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 467
one in the eastern section of the city, and one in the western,
when tickets having six names each were approved. When
the ballots were prepared, these names were arranged under the
heading, “Republican ticket,” and “Federal ticket,” so that
the results of the election held June 7, 1802, gave an equal
representation in the council, not only to the two sections but
to the two political parties.!
The name of Robert Brent appeared on some of the tickets
offered for the approval of the voters, but three days before
the election was held, President Jefferson appointed Mr. Brent
mayor of the city and another name was substituted.2. Mr.
Brent continued by annual presidential appointments, seven
times by Jefferson and three times by Madison, to fill that
office until, by the charter of 1812, congress made the office
elective in the city council. But four years previously he had
been made paymaster-general of the army and six years before
he had been appointed judge of the orphans’ court, to succeed
William Hammond Dersey, and held the position until the
year 1814. For more than one half of the period of ten years
that Mr. Brent was at the head of the affairs of the city he was
discharging the duties of judge of the orphans’ court, and for
four years of that time, in addition, he was paymaster of the
army. As his letters to President Jefferson show * when first
tendered these salaried places, he felt that it would be proper,
on account of the probable demands on his time, that some
one else be given the mayoralty. This suggestion was not
acted upon by the president. This feeling wore away by 1812,
when congress made the office of mayor elective by the city
council, for Mr. Brent was a candidate, and on the tenth
ballot, having received the same number of votes as Daniel
Rapine, lots were drawn, as required by law, and Mr. Rapine
was declared the choice.t. The following year Mr. Brent and
1 Intelligencer, June 9, 1802. The total vote was 233.
2The same, June 4, 1802. Notley Young, the father-in-law of
Mr. Brent and one of the original proprietors, died March 23, 1802.
Intelligencer, March 24, 1802.
$ Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 2, p.241. Robert Brent, first mayor of Wash-
ington. J.D. Morgan, M.D.
4 Intelligencer, June 9, 1812.
468 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Rapine were again opposed, but after the third ballot the
name of the former was withdrawn and that of Dr. James W.
Blake substituted. The vote was again a tie and the choice by
lot fell upon Dr. Blake.!
During the entire period of his service as mayor, Mr. Brent
received no salary, in spite of what appears to be a very sug-
gestive clause in the second law, passed by congress, Feb.
24, 1804, granting corporate powers, which read, “and to give
such compensation to the mayor of the city as they may deem
fit.”’ As soon, however, as the office ceased to be federal, and
was filled by the city council, then a salary was provided which
for the first year was $400, but the next year was increased to
$500.2, Party lines, however, were not drawn as strictly as
sectional lines. One of the newly elected city councilmen,
whose name was on the Federal ticket, stated in a newspaper
communication that while he was indebted to the Federal
party for his election, and while he was not a party man, yet
“his honest convictions make him wish that the Federalists
may never regain their ascendancy in this government.” He
added that owing to this state of his opinions, so candidly
expressed, he was ready to retire from the public service at any
time.* However, A. B. Woodward, a friend of the president,
who was the author of the card, was not called upon to resign,
and so he served out the year for which he had been elected.
In order that there might be no misunderstanding on the part
of the citizens as to their status, under the law incorporating the
city and also with an eye to the collection of taxes in arrears,
Washington Boyd, the tax collector of the levy court, gave
notice that unless citizens paid their taxes they would be de-
prived of the right of voting.
As the charter of the city permitted, the division of the
1 Journal Board of Aldermen, Vol. 5, June 14, 1813.
2 The earliest record of a salary paid to the mayor of Alexandria is
the ordinance of March 27, 1804, when $300 and fees subsequently
reduced to $200 and fees were paid. By an ordinance of Oct. 11, 1803,
the Georgetown council fixed the mayor’s salary at $300, and no change
was made in either case for a number of years.
3 Intelligencer, June 14, 1802.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 469
territory of the city into three wards, as made by the levy court,
was adopted by the judges of election, who were three justices
of the peace, members of the levy court, and when the city
government was organized the expense of making a new assess-
ment for taxation was avoided by accepting that made by the
levy court.1 Washington Boyd, the tax collector of the levy
court, was appointed by the mayor treasurer of the city.”
The rate of taxation, both personal and real, was twenty-five
cents on every hundred dollars of assessed value, the latter
being considered about one half of the real value. The total
assessment was $1,569,600, while the amount of the tax due
was $3924, but only $1431.03 was collected.4 This large
percentage of uncollected taxes was mainly owing to the im-
munity conferred on the owners of unimproved property by
the charter of the city, which forbade the city authorities to
pass any law to sell such property for taxes. An attempt to
lessen the effect of such a privilege was made by the city coun-
cil, by providing in the very first tax law, as was the practice
in Maryland, for the seizure of the personal property of such
delinquents residing in the city and for the usual process of
recovering a debt in case of non-residents. But such a method
was slow and uncertain, so that in effect the large part of the
property in the city liable to taxation was freed from taxation.
1 The first division of the area of the city into wards which was made
by the levy court in 1801 used Pennsylvania Avenue as the dividing line
west of 6th Street, W., the first ward comprising all the territory to the
south, while to the north was the second ward. All the area east of 6th
Street was included in the third ward. This arrangement was changed
by the ordinance of April 17, 1806, when four wards were created
stretching in rectangular form through the city from north to south.
The earlier ward division was similar to the Georgetown system
established by the ordinance of that corporation of Oct. 10, 1796.
M Street was the dividing line between the first and second wards
comprising the town area east of 32d Street and the third and fourth
wards to the west.
2 Intelligencer, May 25, 1803.
’ Same, May 25, 1803. The treasurer was directed by ordinance of
July 14 to make a new assessment, and then the valuation aggregated
$2,364,800, which is stated was based on the real value.
4 Same, June 1, 1803. Report of the joint committee of the city
council.
470 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
A writer of a communication in the Intelligencer of June 1,
1804, asserts that this provision of the charter, as well as one
limiting the franchise, were designed by the party opposed to the
administration to render abortive the entire charter. It was
not until the passage of the law of May 4, 1812, that the dis-
crimination in favor of unimproved property was removed.
The taxes, however, were not wiped out, because the property
could not be sold to pay them. They continued to accumulate,
and besides each year the estimates of the city revenue included
of course the amount of the uncollected taxes. The city coun-
cil early drifted into the habit of basing its appropriations
upon what was due rather than upon the actual collections.
In fact, the city debt had its beginning in the very first year of
the existence of the corporation.
This deficiency was not a great sum, amounting only to
$200, but that was nearly twelve per cent of the entire revenue.!
Congress, by the law of incorporation, conferred on the city
council the right “to lay and collect taxes,” and in pursuance
of that authority the city council imposed a tax upon personal
as well as upon real property. In this particular, the custom
of the day and of the locality on the Maryland side of the
Potomac was followed.?, For in Georgetown both classes of
property were taxed. The exemptions of the Georgetown tax
law included churches, burying grounds, colleges, schools,
articles of merchandise, tools and implements of mechanics.
The list of exceptions in the Washington law included the above
except the last two, but also provided for what suggests con-
ditions of an agricultural community, rather than those of a
town as the crop and produce of the land were excepted. Mer-
chandise and tools were taxed in Washington, provided the
1 Intelligencer, June 1, 1803. Report on the finances of the city by
the joint committee of the city council. See also criticism of the finan-
cial policy of the first council and a defence in the Intelligencer, May
23 and 25, 1803.
2 An ordinance of the corporation of Georgetown for making a new
assessment of real and personal property, April 19,1808. Ordinances
of the Corporation of Georgetown, p. 54, Georgetown, James C. Dunn,
1821. This is the earliest tax ordinance of Georgetown that has been
preserved.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 471
owners were not otherwise assessed, but then the assessment
in such cases was not to exceed $80.1. This provision was no
doubt framed in the interests of an increased revenue, with
the further intent of making available as voters those outside
of the class of real estate owners, although the practice was
followed of not placing on the assessment list the names of
citizens whose personal property was not valued above $100.
Another exemption was worded, “except property belonging to
the United States,” which illustrates the current lack of clear-
ness on the subject of public ownership. However, freedom
of government property from taxation was not judicially
affirmed until more than a decade and a half later.? Besides
paying municipal taxes the citizens of Washington for the first
two years of their city government also paid taxes assessed by
the levy court for the support of the poor of the county, for
the improvement of county roads, bridges, etc. But the next
congress granted the relief asked for in a memorial from the
city council,? and the levy court was deprived of the power of
imposing any tax on the inhabitants of the city of Washing-
ton.* In fact, the wishes of the citizens at that time relative
to modifications in the city charter were generally granted
by the national legislature, except that no change whatever was
made in the franchise privilege in response to the request that
all restrictions be removed and what is known as manhood
suffrage be established.’ To what extent the attitude of the
city fathers was influenced by the current sentiment in the
adjoining state of Maryland, it is of course impossible to deter-
mine, but no doubt at that time the movement had started
which culminated in 1810 in citizens of Maryland securing
white manhood suffrage. It was not until thirty-eight years
later that a similar extension of the franchise was authorized
1 Acts of the corporation of the city of Washington passed by the
first council, Washington, 1803.
2 McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 314 (1819). For an account
of the course of the states in regard to taxing government property see
Van Brocklin vs. Anderson et al. 117 U. S. 151 (1885).
3 Intelligencer, Dec., 24, 1802.
4 Law of Feb. 24, 1804. 5 Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1802.
472 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
by congress in the District There is no record. that this
recommendation of the city council created any comment in
congress where so much had been said of the rights of man and
the importance of preserving them to the citizens of the Dis-
trict. It is curious to note in this first official report to congress
of the concerns of the city under local control, the notion that
its affairs were not merely of local, but of general, interest.
For the members of the city council spoke of “the arduous
operation of so conducting its affairs, as to ensure those expec-
tations which are justly indulged of the metropolis of the
United States.” In spite of the fact that the entire city had
but 233 voters and the budget for the year was less than $2000,
it was none the less expected both by the citizens and to a
large extent by congress that the city government would
line up to the standard of what might be supposed was that of
the capital of the United States. The surroundings of the
local legislators for the first year, when they met officially,
contributed no doubt to such a conception, for the city council
met and organized at the capitol. The same roof that shel-
tered the congress of the United States protected also the city
fathers, as in their subsequent sessions they deliberated upon
the business of the infant city.” In this connection it is sig-
nificant that the first enactment of the city council provided for
the adoption of a design for a seal for the city of Washington
to consist of “a representation of an edifice supported on
sixteen columns,” the latter being the number of states in the
Union. The seal was made, and also an appropriation of
$100 to pay for it.’
1 By the act of May 17, 1848, all restrictions on the franchise of white
citizens were removed except the requirement to pay the school tax
of $1 per year.
2 The second city council met in a house on the east side of 12th
Street, just south of Pennsylvania Avenue. Intelligencer, June 13, 1803.
Two years later the council met in the building erected by the two
Masonic lodges on the west side of 11th Street just north of C Street,
N. W. (lot 1, Square 323), where it remained until the year 1820.
Intelligencer, Aug. 23, 1805.
’ There is no record that either the corporations of Georgetown or
Alexandria found that a corporate seal of such elaborate character was
essential.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 473
The city was laid out, and as far as the character at least of
the two principal public buildings was concerned, built on a
scale that was federal in magnitude and grandeur. To round
out such a conception of the new district, it was at first pro-
posed to provide a government for the entire ten-mile square
that would be at once comprehensive in its scope and dignified
in its details. But all that was abandoned. An ordinary
municipal government, except of course the features of federal
representation, was provided for the city of Washington, but
with no provision for financial resources beyond the usual
revenues of such a government.
With this disposition of the matter congress was apparently
satisfied. The citizens of the new city certainly were, if their
views were fairly represented by a committee of the city coun-
cil in a memorial to congress some six months after the city
government had been established.
“The investiture of the people of the city of Washington,”
the memorial states, “with the political rights of regulating
their own local affairs, is a measure so necessary and of such
inestimable consequence to their welfare that the law which
confers it in the judgment of your memorialists should become
permanent.’”?! Congress did not make the charter permanent,
but by the law of February 24, 1804, continued it in force for
fifteen years. In spite, however, of the assurances of the
memorialists of “the inestimable consequences to their welfare”
of the city government, there were citizens who still felt that
something ought to be done about securing a general govern-
ment for the District. A meeting was called.?
But the action taken, as described by a contemporary, was
at best equivocal,’ as congress was merely asked to grant
authority for holding a delegated convention in the District
to determine the expediency of such a measure.
While it is quite evident there was at that time, as had been
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1802.
2 Same, Jan. 10 and 14, 1803.
3 Same, Feb. 21, 1803. In this and subsequent issues the subject of
a territorial government was discussed.
474 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the case all along, a wide divergence of opinion as to the desira-
bility of a form of government for the entire District, yet such
a system, whatever its character might be, was not to take the
place of the municipal governments. The government of the
towns and that of the entire territory were distinct questions,
so that it is entirely consistent that satisfaction with the
provision for the city government of Washington might exist
in the same mind with dissatisfaction with the course of con-
gress in the management of the District as a whole.
It was also apparently not unusual for District citizens to
grumble about the shortcomings of congress in discharging
its legislative functions for the District. The following extract
from a letter written by a member of congress to a friend in
the District, printed in the Intelligencer of March 11, 1803,
has a familiar sound. “I am sorry for the dissatisfaction of
some of your neighbors because they did not get what they
asked from congress. Considerate men will reflect that
congress had to legislate for the whole United States as well
as for the District of Columbia; that most of the members
were entirely ignorant of your local affairs, but above all that
there was seldom anything like unanimity among yourselves
on the subject of your wants.”
In another respect the municipality of Washington showed
a sense of its importance in directing the printing of five hun-
dred copies of the ordinances passed by the first council.1 The
practice thus begun was continued each year during the sixty-
nine years of the existence of this form of government.”
A more striking instance of Washington in the minds of the
citizens as a national centre may be found in the reasons given
for making as a charge upon the revenue derived from taxation
1 Act of May 25, 1803.
2 The Georgetown corporation did not begin the annual printing of
its ordinances until the year 1830, and then did not continue with regu-
larity. The ordinances of the years 1826-1829 were printed in 1829,
and some ten years later a collection of the ordinances for 1821-1826
was published. A collection of the corporation laws was printed in
1811 and one in 1821. The Alexandria corporation spent no money in
printing session laws but collections of laws were issued, the first appear-
ing in 1811 and subsequent publications in 1821 and 1844.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 475
the cost of the education of the children of the poor. Such a
feature of municipal government was favored by the first city
council, and in response to a specific request, congress gave
authority in the enlarged city charter granted in the year
1804 “to provide for the establishment and superintendence
of public schools.” The next council took the matter up
and a resolution providing for such schools was referred to a
joint committee of the two bodies. A favorable report was
presented, but as enough members could not be secured to
form a quorum until too late in the session, no action was taken.?
When a new council convened, consideration of the school
bill was resumed. It passed the first chamber by a unanimous
vote, but was lost in the second chamber by one vote.’
This action led to public criticism, and the opponent of the
measure felt called upon through the same medium to defend
his course.* He stated he was opposed to taking such a large
sum as $1500 from the scanty revenues of the city for school
purposes. In his opinion the money could be more usefully
employed in street improvements and in erecting and repairing
bridges. This was the situation the middle of August, but
by the following December he had changed his mind, and on
the fifth of that month the school ordinance was passed.
Such a measure, limited as it was to providing at public
expense for the education of children whose parents and
guardians were unable to assume the burden, was for that day
and section of the country a radical departure. Public schools
or schools supported by public taxation were scarcely known
in this country at this period, outside of New England. There
were no public schools in New York City or in Philadelphia,
or in the southern states. “ Poor schools,” as they were called,
were not unknown, and in the latter part of the eighteenth cen-
tury a school of that sort was maintained in Alexandria, but
they were supported by public-spirited citizens. It was not until
1 Memorial of the city council to Congress, Intelligencer, Dec. 24,
1802.
2 Report of the joint committee, Intelligencer, June 29, 1804.
3 Same, Aug. 17, 1804. Analysis of the vote on the school bill.
4 Same, Aug. 22, 1804.
476 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the year 1811 that the publicfunds of the corporation of George-
town were used for school purposes. At that time a school
was opened by an association of citizens on the Lancaster plan,
the first to be established in this country. The building was
erected on 28th’ Street, between M and Olive streets, with
money supplied by the association, while the corporation made
an annual appropriation to defray the tuition of poor pupils."
The principal of public aid to schools was recognized as early
as 1807 in Alexandria, for in that year the trustees of the Alex-
andria Academy asked congress to grant to that institution
all escheats arising within the jurisdiction of the Alexandria
County court and all fines not otherwise appropriated. But
this was not done. A few years later, when the bill to incor-
porate the Bank of Alexandria was before the house, an amend-
ment was offered, which was not adopted, to impose a tax
of one per cent on the capital stock to be paid to the corpora-
tion of Alexandria for the support of free schools. This was
in 1811, and five years later the city council made an appro-
priation to defray the tuition of poor scholars in the Lancaster
school opened in that city. Subsequently the school fund was
extended to cover the cost of the fuel used in the schoolhouse.
By a later law the attendance was limited to those whose
tuition was paid or to poor scholars.?, Some five years after
the Washington school system had been established, the resi-
dents of Washington County felt the need of more general
school opportunities, as is manifest by a petition of the inhabit-
ants, with whom residents of the city joined, asking congress
that the Maryland tax of four dollars on marriages be revived
and put in force in the county, and the proceeds devoted to
schools. But a bill for that purpose was defeated, mainly
from the sentiment against such a tax.’
1 [ntelligencer, June 1 and June 29, 1811. See also The British
System of Education, to which is added a report of the trustees of the
Lancaster school at Georgetown, Col., Washington, 1812.
2 Laws of the corporation of Alexandria, March 21, 1816. In the
year 1810 Georgetown had a population of 4948, while Alexandria had
7227 and Washington 8208.
’ Annals of Congress, 11th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., Dec. 19, 1811,
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 477
The school scheme of Washington attempted a merging of
the pay or private school with the poor school, the latter to be
maintained by public taxation.
The motives which led to what was at that day a progressive
step on the part of a community just established! and of
limited financial resources are set forth in the report of the
committee of the council accompanying the draft of the school
bill. There is but one opinion in this country, the report stated,
as to the importance of education, and there is no need of argu-
ment on behalf of a truth so universally received.
In addition to this general consideration there are others
of a local or peculiar character. The city of Washington,
it was asserted, as the permanent residence of the government,
should feel every motive of honest pride in imparting to her
citizens the traits of honesty, industry and intelligence, the
fruits of education. Then next in importance is the advance-
ment of the arts and the sciences, and what point is better fitted
for their nurture than the metropolis of the nation, for it is
there that “we shall always command in our public councils
the first school of legislation; in the administration of the
government the best specimens of executive talent and in the
tribunals of justice the brightest display of judicial knowledge,
while the navy will necessarily foster institutions well adapted
to improvement in nautical tactics and the ample reservations
of public grounds will be accommodated to the extension of
botanical and natural researches.”
The committee believed that these and many other consider-
ations point out the city of Washington “as the most, perhaps
the only, appropriate position for that distinguished seminary
of learning ”’ which it foresaw would at some future day come
into existence and which would form the appropriate capstone
of the institution which they desired to establish. For the
committee felt “but little doubt of the practicability of immedi-
p. 559. More than half a century elapsed before this portion of the
District was provided with public schools.
1 A year after the schools were opened the population of Washington
was 5652.
478 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ately connecting with the primary schools those of a higher
grade, and of these, being soon added, those of the first order.”
Then advancing a doctrine of civic duty and of civic rights
which had no practical examples in that day outside of New
England, the report asserted the moral obligation of every
community as a community to provide for the education of the
poor. The recommendation therefore followed of the setting
aside for such a purpose the proceeds of taxes “on articles
rarely of necessity, as the use of which depending upon every
man’s inclination will render the payment in a great measure
a voluntary act.”
The taxes proposed by the committee and directed by the
city law to be used for school purposes were those laid on
slaves, dogs, licenses for carriages and hacks, for ordinaries
and taverns, for retailing wines and spirituous liquors, for
billiard tables, for theatrical and other public amusements, and
for hawkers and pedlers.1. The amount to be paid the school
board was not to exceed $1500. Appended to the school
report as published in the Intelligencer of June 29, and July
6, 1804, was a bill, which was enacted into law by the city
council with only minor changes and approved Dec. 5, 1804.
The entire management of the schools by this measure was
intrusted to a board of trustees consisting of thirteen members,
seven of whom were to be elected by the city council and six
by the contributors to the fund which was to supplement what
was evidently regarded as an inadequate provision. In the
meantime a committee of three was appointed by the council
on the same day the mayor of the city affixed his signature to
the measure, for the purpose of receiving subscriptions. This
1 Report of joint committee city council on the treasurer’s accounts
gives the receipts of these taxes for the year 1804-1805 as follows :—
Retail and ordinary licenses . . . . $1252
Hackney and pleasurable carriages . . 220
Billard tables’) 2" 0 4) eee 50
Theatrical license; . 5. 2... 16
Slave and doztas* Wile ey eae 103
Hawkers and pedlers. . . . . . 70
$1711
Intelligencer, May 29, 1805.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 479
was done by a personal canvass, and by the following spring
such progress had been made that the committee decided to
make a report to the council, preliminary to the organization
of the institution! which was completed by the end of July.
On the 17th of that month the subscribers to the fund elected
six trustees as follows: Thomas Munroe, Gabriel Duvall,
Thomas Tingey, Robert Brent, Samuel H. Smith and William
Cranch; while in joint session on the 22d of July the two
chambers of the city council chose seven trustees as follows:
Thomas Jefferson, John Tayloe, Nicholas King, John Dempsie,
Joseph Bromley — vice James Barry declined, George Blagden
and William Brent.? The subscriptions to the school fund
secured by the committee amounted to $3782. There were
191 subscribers, and among them was the name of the president
of the United States, who subscribed $200.2 The funds con-
tributed by individuals were to be used in building school-
houses, while the municipal money was to be devoted to pay-
ing the tuition of pupils unable to meet that expense, to provide
school furniture and also paper, pen and ink for the poor pupils.
It is evident there were differences of opinion among the sub-
scribers as to financing the undertaking, and with the view of
harmonizing the divergent views the prospect was held out of
lessening the burden by making an application to congress to
secure for the Washington schools an appropriation of public
lands as was done in the case of the territories. It may be
concluded that the discontent was not allayed, as less than
half of the subscriptions were paid.
Ten days after the members of the board of trustees of
“the permanent institution for the education of youth in the
city of Washington,” as it was termed in the title of the ordi-
1 Intelligencer, April 29, 1805.
2The same, July 17, 1805. Journal common council, Vol. 1, July
22, 1805.
3 The same, July 8, 1805, giving the list of subscribers.
4 The same, July 12,1805. Also the same, Aug. 1, 1806. An ap-
plication to congress for aid was promptly made by the trustees,
and the effort was renewed from time to time, but without result.
Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 334.
480 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
nance establishing it, were chosen, a meeting was held in the
court-room in the.capitol. The mayor of the city, Robert
Brent, who was a member of the board, presided and was made
vice-president. Thomas Jefferson was elected president and
accepted as far as other “duties of paramount obligation will
permit.” ! A report was submitted by a committee outlining
the measures for carrying into effect the act, and this report
was adopted at the meeting held the following month.”
While pointing out that the provisions of the act “contem-
plate the establishment of an institution in which every species
of knowledge essential to the liberal education of youth may
eventually be acquired,” and that the three great departments
— schools, colleges and universities — are included, yet, “as the
benefits of the schools being in a great measure local, they will
probably derive their principal support from the District,”
while those of the college and university, being more general,
“may justify the hope of national assistance,” the report recog-
nized the importance of the board undertaking nothing which
it does not actually possess the means of effecting. “It ought
not to be forgotten,” the report continued, “that most of the
plans projected in the city have failed principally from under-
taking them before the necessary means were acquired.”
The committee, acting upon this prudent policy, turned its
face from what was evidently an alluring prospect in the wider
scope of the subject — although the board at its third meeting,
Nov. 4, 1805, prepared a memorial to congress, suggesting the
authorization of a lottery for the proposed university — and
agreed upon a plan for starting elementary schools. But the
ambitious tendency was so strong that in the following year
a committee was instructed to inquire into the expediency of
1 Jefferson to Robert Brent, Monticello, Va., Aug. 14, 1805. JIntelli-
gencer, Jan. 29,1806. Jefferson was continued a member of the board
for two years or until about the close of his term as president of the
United States. There is no record of his having attended a meeting of
the trustees.
? Manuscript journal of the proceedings of the board of trustees
from Aug. 5, 1805, to July 6, 1818. Library of Congress. Excerpts
from this journal were published in the Public School report for 1874-
1875.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 481
establishing a city library in connection with the schools.
The report when made was laid on the table and no further
action was taken. For the present at least, the board decided,
two schools would be sufficient, one in the eastern section of
the city and one in the western. There were to be two classes
of pupils, poor and pay.
The former were to be taught “reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic and such branches of mathematics as may qualify
them for the professions they are intended to follow, and
they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay
pupils as the board may from time to time direct, and pay
pupils shall besides be instructed in geography and in the
Latin language.”! A further class distinction was made in
the provision that paper, pens and ink be furnished free to
“poor children,” which is the term usually employed in the
journal, although in the minutes of one of the early meetings
there is an entry of “a list of paupers,” reported from one of
the schools. Yet curiously enough in this plan where the divid-
ing line was drawn so broadly between the two classes of pupils,
and which was moreover given the widest circulation possible
by publishing it in full in the Jntelligencer, it was further pro-
vided that neither the committee of the board having charge
of the admissions to the school of poor children, “nor the
principal teacher to whom alone the circumstances shall be
communicated, shall disclose a knowledge of those who are
educated as poor children.” The first school opened was the
Western School on the 20th of January, 1806, with Richard
White in charge as principal teacher. For the first year a
rented house was occupied on the south side of Pennsylvania
Avenue, between 17th and 18th streets, N. W.?
It was not until the 19th of May the Eastern Academy was
opened, although Rev. Robert Ellict of Strasburg, Pa., had been
elected principal in February. The north building of Carroll
Row on the east side of Ist Street, between East Capitol Street
1 Plan of the academy. Journal of the board. Intelligencer, Sept. 25,
1805.
2 Intelligencer, Jan. 17, 1806, and June 12, 1807.
voL. I—21
482 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
and Pennsylvania Avenue, S. E., erected the previous year,
was rented and occupied.! In the fall of 1806 permission was
obtained from the president to use as sites for the proposed
schoolhouses lots belonging to the United States. In accord-
ance with this authority the board erected a building for the
use of the Western Academy on lot 27, Square 127, at the
southwest corner of 17th and I streets, N. W.?
The site selected for the Eastern Academy was on East Capi-
tol Street, probably between Ist and 2d streets. The school-
houses, according to a resolution of the board of Oct. 27, 1806,
were fifty feet in length and twenty feet clear in width. The
Eastern Academy was apparently occupied in the spring of
1807, while the change to the new building erected for the Wes-
tern Academy was not made until later in that year.*? The
Western Academy building cost $797.27 and that of the Eas-
tern Academy $792.14.4
The expense of erecting the schoolhouses exhausted the
entire fund subscribed by citizens and left a slight deficit.
Less than half of the subscriptions were paid, so that instead
of $3782 being available, the treasurer of the board reported
that only $1565 had been received up to May 4, 1807. The
treasurer also reported the total expenditures for salaries,
1 Intelligencer, May 14, 1806.
2 The corporation of the city of Washington finally in the year 1821
purchased the lot from the government for $100 and sold it with the
building in 1832 for $309. EHighty Years of the Public Schools of Wash-
ington. J. Ormond Wilson. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 1, p. 126. Corp.
law, Oct. 26, 1820, appropriating $100 for the purchase of the lot.
3 Intelligencer, April 17, 1807. Announcement of the opening of a
school for young ladies in ‘‘the house next to the one lately occupied by
Mr. Elliot on Capitol Hill.”” Advertisement, June 12, 1807, of the sale
of a two-story brick house on part of lot 18, Square 168 (south side of
Pennsylvania Avenue, between 17th and 18th streets) which ‘“‘adjoins the
one now in occupation of Mr. White, the teacher of the Western School.”
It is supposed the teachers lived in the houses rented for the use of the
schools, as the journal notes the approval of the board of the house
taken by Mr. White.
* Report of committee to ascertain the state of the public schools
made April 13, 1814, to the board of aldermen. Journal of that body,
Vol.5. Also report of treasurer of the trustees, May 25,1807. Journal
of school board.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 483
furniture, supplies and other items from Sept. 25, 1805, to
May 4, 1807, were $1714, while there had been received from
the city treasury the sum of $2250.1
The school hours fixed by the board from March 20 to
Sept. 20, in each year, were from 8.30 to 12.30, and from 2.30
to 5.30 and from Sept. 20 to March 20, from 9 to 12, and
from 2 to 4.30. On Saturdays the schools were opened to 12
o'clock. The vacations were 4th of July, 10th to 3lst of
August and Dec. 24 to Jan. 4.
It is evident the expectations of the board, relative to the
patronage of the schools from those able to pay tuition, were in
keeping with its views as to its scope and future. For within
a year the stated salary to the principal teachers was abolished
and instead they were to receive the tuition from the pay
scholars and $20 per year for each poor scholar, not to ex-
ceed sixty in number annually. The school fund was di-
minished when the city council at the beginning of the third
school year cut down the appropriation from $1500 to $800
because of the apparent profusion in the expenditure of the
public money, which “was loudly complained of.’’?
A few months after this action by the city council a com-
mittee of the trustees reported to that body that “the institu-
tion for the education of youth could not be supported in any-
thing like a state of respectability, according to the plan now
in operation, for the reason that no teacher possessing requisite
talents and character could be induced to take the principal
charge of either branch of the institution for the sum produced
from the grant of the corporation and the fees of pay scholars.”
1TIn this amount was included $750 for the half of the city’s fiscal
year from May 28, 1805, to May 28, 1806, and the entire appropriation
of $1500 for the year 1806-1807. The total revenue of the city for the
latter year was $9905, including $2000 borrowed from the bank to be
repaid from the receipts from delinquent taxpayers, so that the school
appropriation was 15 per cent of the total city expenditures. Report
of joint committee of the city councils on the finances. Intelligencer,
May 29, 1807. In 1911 public school expenditures were 28 per cent
of the annual budget of the District.
2 Report of a committee of the trustees, Aug. 3, 1812, to the city
council. Journal of the board.
484 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The remedy proposed by the, committee, and, in fact, as it was
explained, “the only mode of saving the institution was the
merging of the two schools into one central academy.” But
as it turned out the plan proposed to the board and adopted
for one academy took the more ambitious form of a college,
for which an application for a charter was to be made to con-
gress and subscriptions solicited for an endowment. But
nothing came of the college scheme. Three years later, in the
spring of 1812, a building on the south side of E Street, between
7th and 8th streets, N. W., was rented by the trustees and a
school opened on the Lancaster plan, under the direction of
Henry Ould, a pupil of Lancaster, the founder of the system,
who had sent him from England. A brother, Robert Ould,
had, the previous November, opened a Lancastrian school in
Georgetown, which was incorporated the next year by congress
as the trustees of the Georgetown Lancaster School Society.!
A school building was erected on the west side of 29th Street,
between Bridge and Olive streets. The two buildings erected
by the trustees of the Washington schools continued under their
management, but as private schools; that is, only pay pupils
admitted.”
The failure of the school plan, according to the report of a
committee of the trustees made Jan. 20, 1809, and also
repeated ina history of the first six years of the schools, sent to
the city council by the trustees Aug. 3, 1812, was due to the
lack of adequate funds, which was the only circumstance,
the trustees asserted, that prevented the attendance of a
larger number of poor pupils. The class distinction of the
system, which appears so intolerable to the modern mind,
does not seem to have been an obstacle in the progress of the
schools; at least there is no contemporary reference to it as
1 Intelligencer, March 18, 1812. Act of Congress, March 19, 1812.
The incorporators were John Laird, Henry Foxall, Stephen B. Balch,
Robert Beverly, Robert Munro, John M. Daniel, Jr., David Wiley,
Walter D. Addison, Daniel Bussard, Francis S. Key, Walter Smith and
John Abbott.
2 Report of committee board of aldermen on the schools. Journal,
Vol. 5, April 13, 1814.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 485
even a probable cause of the failure, although the rule adopted
by the board making the list of poor pupils private and confi-
dential certainly indicates there was some apprehension on this
point. However, the same system was continued in the Lan-
castrian school, and one of the admired features was “that no
one but the teachers, not even the master himself, knows which
scholars are paid for and which go free.’’! Later on a dis-
crimination was made against the pay pupils in reducing the
tuition only of the poor pupils from $20 to $14 per year.2,. On
the other hand, the two schools, during the period both
classes of pupils were received, seemed to rank with the pri-
vate schools, judging from the notices and advertisements
that appeared in the newspapers.®
At the same time the effect on schools conducted on such a
plan of the competition of other schools was no doubt impor-
tant. In a sketch of the public schools, published in the Jntel-
ligencer, Aug. 25, 1809, it is stated that four years ago, when the
schools were established, there were in the city two or three
private schools, but at that time there were at least ten. But
after all it was the money question. In the seven years since
1803 the population of the city had doubled, and its revenue
showed a still greater proportionate increase, so that instead
of devoting fifteen per cent of the annual expenditure to schools
as at first, only a little more than three per cent was allotted
to such a purpose.* When in the fall of 1806 the trustees
1 Intelligencer, March 19, 1812.
2 The same, Jan. 12, 1810. At a later period when the attendance
was exclusively confined to poor pupils, then they were given the
name of charity schools.
8 Richard White, the principal of the Washington Academy, West,
‘takes the opportunity of acquainting the respectable friends in the
vicinity of the academy”’ that ‘‘he will be prepared to receive a few
young ladies under his care.’’ Intelligencer, Dec. 31, 1806.
Advertisement of Robert Elliot, principal of the Washington Acad-
emy, East, that he has an assistant engaged and daily expected, and
that he will have more time and leisure to devote to the higher classes
and the female department. Intelligencer, Nov. 3, 1806.
4 A summary statement of receipts and expenaitures of the corpora-
tion of Washington from June, 1810, toJune, 1811. Intelligencer, June
Ee
486 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
were considering the selection of a permanent site for the two
schools, an application was made by them to the city council
asking for the use of the Eastern Academy, the market-house
on New Jersey Avenue.! As has been stated, another site was
chosen for the school. The earliest reference that has been
preserved to this market is to be found in the corporation law
of Oct. 6, 1802, taking under public control the two existing
markets — the Centre and New Jersey Avenue markets — and
authorizing the establishment of an east and of a west market.
Centre Market had been opened in December of the previous
year, in place of the one that had been in use on the President’s
Square. It may be concluded the market-house on New Jersey
Avenue had been in operation for some time. From the bounds
given in the ordinance of 1802, of the section of the city for
which the market-house was provided, it may be inferred that
its location was on the section of New Jersey Avenue, south
of D Street, S. E., and presumably on the public reservation,
now known as Garfield Park. It was opened under municipal
control on the 4th of February, 1803.2 In less than a year
authority was given by the city council to establish “a market
on the Market Square at the Eastern Branch to be called the
Eastern Branch Market.” * This reservation comprised the
two squares between K and L streets, extending from 5th
Street, nearly to 7th, S. E., and is now unoccupied, but is still
public property. Such authority was accompanied by the
condition usual in such cases, that a market-house be built
by individual subscription. But that was not done until the
fall of 1806, when the market was finally opened.t There
is no further mention of the market on New Jersey Avenue. In
a couple of months after the passage of the ordinance of Oct.
6, 1802, the Western Market was opened, the site occupied
being the triangular public ground, now used as a park on the
1 Journal of common council, Vol. 1, Oct. 13, 1806.
2 Intelligencer of that date.
3 Ordinance of Dec. 1, 1804.
* Ordinance of Nov. 28, 1806, Intelligencer, Aug. 29, 1806. Announce-
ment that “‘the new market-house near the Navy Yard’ would be
open Sept. 1.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 487
north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 20th and 21st
streets, N. W.1 During the early years the Western Market
had a struggling existence, and as late as 1814 but one stall
had been rented the two previous years and none at all during
that current year.?
Several years elapsed before another market was established,
and then on the first day of February, 1813, the Capitol Hill
Market was opened.’ As there was no public ground apparently
to be had in the desired locality “‘in or near East Capitol Street,”
the market building was erected in the centre of East Capitol
Street, between Ist and 2d streets® followingin this particular the
course of congress that gave over to the use of the doorkeepers
of the two houses and their families two frame structures that
stood directly in the line of B Street and New Jersey Avenue, on
the south side of the capitol, and which had been erected by
the commissioners for the use of the workmen.’ The cost of
the market-house was met by a direct appropriation of public
funds, the first expenditure of that sort. The new centre of
business was not regarded with favor by those interested in
the Centre and Eastern markets, as it was thought likely to
draw away the patronage at those places which in the case of
the Centre Market already enjoyed the distinction of being
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 6, 1802. Western Market opened, Dec. 3, 1802.
Also the same, Aug. 4, 1826, describing the location. Although a site
for a market for that section of the city had been provided in making the
public reservations in the square bounded by 20th and 21st streets and
B and the Potomac River it was not used and was never occupied. To-
day it is a part of the Potomac Park. At that time it was in part at
least covered by the waters of the Potomac. See advertisement in
Intelligencer, Sept. 2, 1805, describing the brewery on the square to the
north as being on navigable water.
2 Journal board of aldermen, Vol. 5. Message of the mayor, Feb.
12, 1814.
3 Intelligencer, Jan. 28, 1813. In the issue of Noy. 13 appears for the
first time the designation Marsh Market current for so many years
of Centre Market.
4 Corporation law, Dee. 21, 1812.
5 Intelligencer, Sept. 20, 1826.
6 These houses were described by Latrobe in a report made in 1808
as in a decayed condition and unfit for further use. American State
Papers, Vol. 1, Miscellaneous, p. 720.
488 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the best in the city.!. About this time an agitation, claimed to
be in the interests of the new market, was started to do away
with the Sunday market at Centre Market, authorized by the
ordinance of 1802.2. The advocates of the change charged that
the Sunday markets were the occasion of disorder, and it is
presumed that as one reason assigned for a Sunday market was
that it afforded the only opportunity for slaves in the adjoining
states to bring the product of their industry to the market,*
that class of the population was beginning to prove trouble-
some in this particular as it was in other phases of community
life of the day. In 1810 the slave population of the city itself
was sixteen per cent of the entire population, but at the end
of ten years the percentage had declined to fourteen and a
half.4 As early as 1808 the city fathers endeavored to dis-
courage the sending of slaves from the adjoining states into
the District as it was found the competition of such labor
tended to lessen the number of white laborers by depriving
them of work. The male slaves of non-residents over eighteen
years of age when brought into the city and hired were taxed
by the city authorities $15 per annum, while the tax on the
same class belonging to residents was only $1.50 per year.
As indicating the state of the demand for domestic help a tax
of $1 per annum was imposed alike on female slaves belong-
ing to resident and non-resident owners.° There were also
objections to Sunday markets from those who looked upon
them as violations of a proper observance of the day.® A
compromise was proposed in the message of the mayor of the
city, James H. Blake, to the city council,’ who recommended
the doing away with Sunday markets from October lst to
April lst. As he explains, the season is sufficiently cold to
1 Tntelligencer, June 17, 1813.
2 The same, Nov. 23, 1813.
3 The same, Dec. 10, 1812, and Nov. 23, 1813.
4 In the same period the free colored population increased from 10 to
12 per cent.
5 City Ordinances of May 25, 1808, and Nov. 10, 1809.
6 Intelligencer, Dec. 10, 1812.
7 Journal Bd. of Alder., Vol. 5, Oct. 10, 1815.
CITY. GOVERNMENT AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 489
market on Saturday for Sunday and Monday, so that in the
lack of ice and means for keeping perishable articles may be
found the principal reasons for markets on the first day of the
week. Such a change had been made, the mayor states, in
Georgetown and Alexandria.1. He also adds that in this way
a means will be provided for excluding from the city many
disorderly characters who make marketing an excuse for
coming to the city. “TI trust,” he concludes with a mixture of
pious and commercial motives, “we shall not be wanting in
piety and devotion sufficient at any rate to enforce a strict
observance of the day, more especially when we cannot be put
to any inconvenience by it.”
A bill to accomplish this purpose was passed by the common
council, but was rejected by the board of aldermen. Four
years later a law was made which prohibited Sunday markets
without regard to the seasons of the year.2, However,the oppo-
nents of the measure, when they found themselves in the mi-
nority, resolved to go beyond the jurisdiction of the city council,
where they could enjoy the freedom of going to market on
Sunday. A market was established at the south end of the
Navy Yard bridge, but as there is no record of a further refer-
ence to it the conclusion may be reached that it was not con-
tinued Jong.*
The argument made use of in the movement to do away with
Sunday markets that they were a violation of the day was in
accordance with a sentiment of the time that found expression
strongly in the city ordinances of Georgetown and then to a
less degree in those of Alexandria and still less in those of Wash-
ington. As early as the year 1796 the Georgetown fathers
decreed that shops should be closed on Sunday and there
should be no buying or selling of goods dealt in by shop keep-
1 In Georgetown the Sunday market was only for thesale of butchers’
meat, but was abolished by an ordinance passed by the council a few
weeks before similar action was taken by the Washington corporation.
Ordinance of Corporation of Georgetown, p. 110, 1821.
2 Ordinance, Aug. 2, 1819. Authority was given to open all the mar-
ket-houses Saturday evening.
3 City of Washington Gazette, Oct. 4, 1819.
490 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ers and hucksters. A further advance in Sunday restrictions
was made by the law of April 2, 1814, when working on Sunday
was forbidden or allowing children or slaves to work, “or other-
wise profane the Sabbath by going hunting, fishing or other
unlawful pastimes.”
In Alexandria the Sunday legislation in the early days was
confined to the ordinance of June 2, 1806, which made a finable
offence to play bandy and other games on Sunday with dis-
order or noise or indulging in noisy or disorderly conduct “to
the great inconvenience of the citizens.” + In the same year the
Washington city council did away with Sunday markets, it
also prohibited the sale of liquor on Sunday, and three years
later forbade the discharge of firearms or hunting within the
city limits on that day. Those three provisions of Sunday
legislation marked the beginning of laws of that description,
and also the end, at least for a number of years.
1 Laws of corporation of Alex., p. 156 Alex., 1811.
CHAPTER XIX
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY
To make Washington a centre for the trade and business
of the surrounding country, as well as to make it readily acces-
sible, was the purpose of much of the effort and money ex-
pended by residents in the early years. To accomplish this,
bridges were erected over the Potomac and the Eastern Branch,
where none had ever been, and new roads were opened. Ade-
quate means of communication with the proposed new centre
was one of the important topics in L’Enfant’s preliminary
study of the proper treatment of the site which he submitted
to President Washington a few weeks after he came to the
locality.1_ When he included the entire site selected in his plan,
he proposed the erection of a bridge over the Eastern Branch
and one over the Potomac, with Pennsylvania Avenue as a con-
nection through the city, and also a bridge at the terminus of
East Capitol Street.2 He also provided in his scheme for the
post road to pass through the city. In addition he laid down the
route of a canal, connecting the Potomac and Eastern Branch.
With the exception of the post road, all these enterprises were
carried out by citizens. As early as 1797 a bridge was built
across the Potomac just below the Little Falls, but after a
service of seven years, from natural decay, the wooden roofed-
in structure fell from its high abutments of stone.? A new
bridge similar in design and material was erected, but in six
months it disappeared as the resuli of a freshet, although it
1 Note relative to the ground lying on the Eastern Branch. War
Department Manuscripts, Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 2, p. 26.
2 These structures are shown on L’Enfant’s map, the Potomac bridge
being at the Little Falls. On the Philadelphia engraved map the
Potomac bridge is placed opposite Georgetown.
3 Intelligencer, April 27, 1804 and March 16, 1808.
491
492 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
was thirty-seven feet above the ordinary level of the river.!
Four years passed before the loss was repaired, and then a new
bridge was built, supported entirely by iron chains.? But in
a little more than two years the newstructure, swung across the
water, was unable to withstand the pressure of the logs brought
down in masses by a great freshet, and was carried away.®
More than a year passed before the damage was repaired, and
a new bridge, supported by chains, spanned the river. Before,
however, the company could raise the needed funds, it was
necessary to secure from congress an act authorizing an assess-
ment of the stock.’ In the year 1804, when the Potomac
bridge, or as it came to be called, the chain bridge, was swept
away, the purpose of the Maryland charter of 1795 was accom-
plished when the Eastern Branch at the foot of Kentucky
Avenue was spanned with a structure which came to be known
as the Lower Bridge.® In the following year another Maryland
bridge charter, granted in 1797, was utilized and a structure was
erected by the Anacostia Co., a short distance north of the foot
of East Capitol Street, which was spoken of as the upper bridge.®
It may be concluded this bridge was built mainly at the ex-
pense of Benjamin Stoddert, who with Thomas Law and John
Templeman were named in the charter to receive subscriptions
to the stock, for some years later Dr. Thomas Ewell, his son-
in-law and administrator of the estate, offered for sale 196
shares of the company’s stock, which was within four shares
of the entire authorized capital of $20,000.’
1 Intelligencer, April 27, 1804.
2 The same, March 16, 1808.
3 The same, Nov. 24, 1810.
4 United States Law, Feb. 22,1811. Also memorial of the bridge
company giving history of the structure, 19th Cong., Ist Sess., Sen.,
No. 86, May 1, 1826.
5 Intelligencer, Jan. 11, 1804. Bridge opened Jan. 12.
6 City Ordinance, Nov. 29, 1805, ‘‘the upper bridge now erecting over
the Anacosta [sic] Creek.”’
7 Intelligencer, Jan. 24 and Dec. 26, 1822. As Mr. Stoddert owned a
tract of land known as Long Meadows adjoining the city bounds where
the bridge spanned the Branch, as well as property at Bladensburg, it is
apparent that it was designed to develop his holdings. The bridge
eventually passed into the possession of William Bennings.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 493
As early as the fall of 1801 a more direct communication
with Alexandria and the southern country than the existing
post road, via the Georgetown ferry, was recognized as impor-
tant, and at that time a movement was begun to erect a bridge
over the Potomac at the foot of Maryland Avenue. It was
not until nearly seven years had passed that congress gave
the necessary authority for forming a company.
At the time the city was laid out, even Rock Creek was with-
out such facilities, for the first structure of thesort erected a num-
ber of years previous on the line of M Street had fallen down.
Karly in their administration the city commissioners built a
bridge on the line of K Street and in the fall of 1800 another
structure was erected at the foot of M Street by the joint contri-
bution of the city commissioners, the corporation of Georgetown
and citizens. By means of the bridges the city streets were con-
nected with the outlying territory, while to span such important
watercourses as the Tiber and its tributaries and James Creek,
that divided the area of the city into sections, minor struc-
tures were erected by the commissioners over the Tiber at
Pennsylvania Avenue and 2d Street, at 7th Street, just south
of Pennsylvania Avenue, and also over a tributary of James
Creek at New Jersey Avenue, and E Street, S. E., and on
south N Street over James Creek.
An effort was made to continue the work started by the
city commissioners to build what became the Washington
City canal. Authority was given by the Maryland legisla-
ture in 1795 to certain citizens to hold a lottery and devote
the proceeds to the construction of the canal under the direc-
tion of the city commissioners, but while the lottery was drawn,
the receipts were evidently not sufficient to even make a start,
as nothing was done. Then in 1802 a canal company was
chartered by congress. As the first grant of privilege made
by congress in the District to what is now known as a public
utility corporation, this measure is of interest as it expresses
modern ideas as to the mutual obligations and rights of the
public and of a corporation of that character.
It was stipulated in exchange for the free donation of a right
494 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
of way through the city that when the receipts for wharfage
produced the annual interest of eight per cent on the sums
expended, exclusive of the tolls, then the tolls shall cease and
the canal be entirely free for passage. But having still in
mind the public interests, the charter further required that
when the wharfage shall exceed the annual interest of twelve
per cent, then one-half of the surplus shall be appropriated
to such public uses as congress may direct or be used to pay
off the principal. The charter was to continue fifty years,
“or as much longer as the principal sums expended shall remain
unpaid.” It was further provided that always all public
property shall pass free of wharfage and toll. In case within
five years the canal was not completed so as to admit boats
drawing three feet of water to pass through the entire extent
of two and one-half miles, the waterway should revert to the
United States.!. But so little did the enterprise appeal to the
public, although the projectors used every effort to enlist the
coéperation of capital and even made an attempt to raise
money in England,? a company was not even formed.? Seven
years later, the charter having expired two years previously
by limitation, congress granted a new charter, which exacted
less in return for the privileges granted than its predecessor.*
It was, however, stipulated that any excess in net profits
in one year over fifteen per cent upon the sum actually expended
by the company in opening and completing the canal should
be paid to the city of Washington. Public property was as
before to be exempt from the payment of tolls, and if the canal
was not completed in seven years, it should revert to the
United States. In addition, the company was required to
make annual reports to congress, as is now done by all
District public utility corporations.
Why the second attempt in 1802 to build the canal failed,
1 United States Stats., Vol. 2, p. 175.
2 Intelligencer, Sept. 5, 1803. A letter from Thomas Law dated
May 20 in England stated that he was engaged in raising money in that
country for the canal.
3 The same, Sept. 6, 1817.
4 United States Law, Feb. 16, 1809.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 495
-
can only be gathered from isolated statements found in con-
temporary records. According to one of these, “the Potomac
Company was at a stop for want of resources and the city had
few inhabitants in the Eastern Branch, and a general despon-
dency prevailed from disappointments, failures, and impover-
ishment which it is now painful to look back upon.’! It is
quite evident the enterprise did not have behind it a united
community.”
This was due in part to sectional jealousies; the interests
of Georgetown and the western end of the city being opposed
to those of the eastern section. It was the latter locality as
the terminus of the proposed waterway that was to become a
shipping port and a commercial centre, and hence, it was nar-
rowly concluded, would derive all the benefits of the proposed
work.’
The rivalry between the different parts of the city had existed
from the beginning and owed its long continuance and vigor
to the peculiarity, unknown in towns of that day, of two prin-
cipal centres, caused by placing the capitol and the department
buildings at a distance from each other, instead of making one
centre and grouping the sparse population about it, so that the
growth of the city couid follow the natural course of an expan-
sion outward. Then again one of the purposes in building the
canal was to bring articles intended for the use of the citizens
from the river through the city, thus reducing the cost of long
and expensive hauls. As a community interest such a consider-
ation no doubt had a wide appeal. Even Georgetown had no
reason for jealousy. But what was said of the Eastern Branch
1 Intelligencer, May 18, 1807. ‘‘It is, I believe,’ comments Latrobe
in the report made in 1804 to the canal commissioners, ‘‘impossible
to meet with a single individual who is in perfect good humor, when
talking of the city.’’ Intelligencer, May 26, 1809.
2 More than two years elapsed before the public was invited to sub-
scribe to the stock. Notice of the opening of the subscription books.
Intelligencer, June 15, 1804.
3 No doubt such a conception was confirmed by the fact that
Thomas Tingey, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Thomas Law and
Daniel C. Brent, who were named in the law to receive subscriptions
to the stock, were property holders and residents of the eastern section.
496 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
and its future was quite another matter. It was all very well
to point out that large vessels could not load at Georgetown ow-
ing to the shallowness of the channel and also that the river
in that locality was closed with ice for a portion of the year while
the Eastern Branch was more open, and also that the ascent
of the river beyond Greenleaf Point required two tides, an im-
portant consideration in sail navigation.t A line of argument
of this sort was not very palatable to the citizens of Georgetown,
who were spending their money in an attempt which they hoped
would result in removing the obstructions caused by the mud
deposits in their channel below Analostan Island, and who later
on secured authority from congress to levy a special tax on the
real estate within? the corporate limits to defray the cost of
building a causeway from Analostan Island to the Virginia
shore.”
As the use of a dredge or what was called a mud machine
had not been effective in removing the bar, it was concluded
that if the entire volume of water at that time divided into
two parts by Analostan Island could be made to sweep through
the eastern channel, then the obstruction would be carried
away. The causeway was built under the direction of Thomas
Moore, a Quaker of Brookville, Maryland, and while the main
course of the river was again changed to the east side of the
island and the channel between the island and Georgetown was
deepened, the bar below remained and increased in size.2 But if
the causeway was disappointing to the Georgetown people in
1 Observations on the intended canal. Thomas Law.
2 United States Law, Jan. 19, 1805. The sum of $24,000 was
realized, and a causeway was built wide enough to become a part of the
post road to Alexandria which passed over a portion of the north end
of the island. In consideration of the right of way granted by General
Mason, the owner of the island, he was given the exclusive right to
operate a ferry from the corporate limits of Georgetown. United States
vs. Morris Testimony, p. 526, petition of the Corporation of George-
town to Congress, Jan. 4, 1811. Also terms of the agreement with
General Mason. Sen. Doc., No. 86, 19th Cong., Ist Sess., May 1,
1826.
* Journal. Washington Common Council. Vol. 2, July 26, 1810.
Report of committee. Also United States vs. Morris Testimony, p. 495.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 497
its failure to keep the channel of the river clear of deposits,
it was found to be an actual injury to the trade of Alexandria.
For instead of the sailing vessels descending the river to Alexan-
dria being able to use the safe channel protected by the high
shores, they were obliged to run the risks of the open river.!
An appeal was made to congress, and the city council of Alex-
andria was given authority by that body to levy a tax for the
purpose of building a canal from the river around the causeway
to Alexandria,” but owing to the disturbed conditions growing
out of the war, the work was not done. In addition to the
Washington canal increasing facilities of local communication,
it was also expected that the goods brought down the Potomac,
when the Potomac Canal was finished, would pass through the
city canal to the Eastern Branch. But the people of George-
town had no more notion of becoming a way station on a water
route than they had of losing their position on the great high-
way between the north and south which they foresaw would
be the outcome of the building of the bridge over the Potomac
at the foot of Maryland Avenue.
The Georgetown point of view was no doubt voiced by Ben-
jamin Stoddert,? who declared that within five years after
Europe was at peace Georgetown as a centre of trade would
equal Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York or Boston. But the
peace of Europe was delayed beyond that period. The diffi-
culties of the navigation of the Potomac north of Alexandria
could hardly with reason be attributed to the baleful effects
of the ambition of Napoleon, if the picture of the Georgetown
river trade as given in the course of the bridge debate was
not overdrawn. For then it was said no square-rigged vessel
would risk an approach to Georgetown for the purpose of
being fully loaded there. Last year, it was asserted, a few
went up empty, took in a part of their cargoes and dropped
1 Annals of Congress, 23d Cong., Ist Sess., p. 966, Jan. 8, 1835.
2 United States Law, June 17, 1812.
3 Stoddert to John Templeman. About 1804. Manuscript Division
Library of Congress.
4 Annals of Congress, 10th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 803 et seg., Nov. 4,
1807.
VOL. I—2k
498 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
down to Alexandria, where’ the loading was completed. Even
tobacco, inspected at Georgetown, was taken in drays to the
Eastern Branch to be shipped. During the past eight years,
one speaker said, the number of vessels going to Georgetown
averaged only about twenty-three per year."
A few months later, a bill to make the Eastern Branch a port
of entry was reported unfavorably in the house on the ground
that the fees at the custom house in Georgetown were not suffi-
cient to compensate the collector, and he was paid $200 in addi-
tion from the public treasury. It was also the confident ex-
pectation of the advocates of the city canal that the menace
to the health of the city as well as the unsightliness of the prin-
cipal approach to the capitol, due to the swamp that bordered
the sluggish current of the Tiber south of Pennsylvania Avenue
from 12th Street practically to the foot of Capitol Hill would
be removed.” The prospect of this improvement seemed the
more favorable as the determined line of the canal left the
course of the Tiber in the vicinity of 6th Street and followed the
south side of Pennsylvania Avenue to 3d Street. It was sup-
posed the water from the Tiber and the bordering morass would
be drained off into the new waterway.’ But as the years went
on, the enterprise of the Potomac Company, still incomplete,
came to a standstill for want of money. As offering the only
prospect of bringing to the city the great volume of trade with
the western country, the halting and uncertain prosecution of
what came to be recognized as an impractical scheme for the
improvement of the Potomac no doubt was a serious check
in the trade development of the city. At the same time an
early evidence that the city might prosper even if it did not
become a commercial centre was to be found in the growth of
1 The author of a communication in the Intelligencer of Jan. 16,
1804, in replying to a protest against congress granting the petition for
a bridge just presented stated that only about half a dozen sea vessels
(or vessels of the larger type) enter the port of Georgetown annually.
2 Intelligencer, May 18, 1807. There was also a swamp between
New Jersey Avenue and the proposed canal formed by the tributaries
of James Creek.
3 The same, Sept. 6, 1817.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 499
the population. For in the first ten years the city more than
doubled in size. It led the three towns, even forging ahead of
Alexandria, which in 1800 had nearly twice as many people,
while Georgetown, at that period, about equalled Washington,
but ten years later had forty per cent less than the capital
city. Washington’s growth in the first seven years of that
decade was surpassed by that of the last three years, as sixty
per cent of the decennial increase was gained in the latter period.
But while the circumstances of the community improved from
year to year, due to the growth in population, yet a large part
of the capital available for investment was absorbed in sub-
scriptions to the stock of various companies organized to erect
bridges and build turnpikes, objects recognized as of vital
importance. This condition, as well as a lack of public confi-
dence in the practical character of the canal scheme and in
the results of such an improvement, affected the prospects of
the company chartered in 1809. However, the projectors
acted with promptness. Two months after the law passed,
notice was given of the opening of books for subscription to
the stock. But the subscriptions came in slowly, and two years
passed before the last instalment was paid.'’ Even then only
one-half of the authorized capital of $100,000 was sub-
scribed.”
The actual work of digging the canal was begun a little more
than a year after the charter was granted. It was made a public
event, and nothing was lacking in the character of the exercises
to enhance the importance of the undertaking. A marquee
was erected near the junction of New Jersey Avenue and E
Street, S. E., where the company’s office was established. Here
on a May afternoon came Mr. Madison, the President of the
United States, and the principal officers of the federal and city
governments. The engineer of the work, B. H. Latrobe, who
had served in that capacity with the promoters of the first
canal company, had marked out the lines of the proposed water-
1 Intelligencer, July 30, 1811.
2 The same, Sept. 6, 1817. History of the project in a communi-
cation signed ‘‘Stockholder.”’
500 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
way and the president of the company, Elias B. Caldwell, the
clerk of the United States Supreme Court, handed a spade to
President Madison, who turned the first sod. Then the com-
pany went to the tent, where toasts were drunk. Before the
invited guests and spectators left the spot the actual work was
begun, as the contractor started turning up the ground with a
plough drawn by six horses.!| For a year gangs of Irishmen
toiled in the trenches,” and then the money paid by the stock-
holders was spent, the resources of the company were exhausted.
The following spring congress came to the rescue, not by a
direct appropriation, but by reviving the Maryland law of 1795,
passed for the benefit of the canal, which gave authority to hold
a lottery. But the national legislature was not willing to grant
such a privilege, which was valued more highly by that body
than by the investing public, without exacting some return,
which the Maryland law failed to do, and so the condition was
imposed that the proceeds of the lottery, after the expenses
were paid, were to be used in completing the canal and draining
the marshes and low grounds contiguous to the canal.* But
that was not all, for the right was reserved to congress to create
additional shares of canal stock for the sole benefit of the corpo-
ration of Washington, the new capital stock to bear the same
proportion to the existing issue as the amount derived by the
company from the lottery bore to the expenditures made or
1 Intelligencer, May 10, 1810, nearly eighteen years since a beginning
was made to build the canal.
2 Chorographical Description of the District. D. B. Warden, Paris,
1816, p. 27. Warden states that at that time (1811) the laboring class
of the city was mainly composed of Irish. But they were not all
recent comers. As early as the year 1802 ‘‘the sons of Hibernia,”
wearing shamrock in their hats on the 17th of March, were sufficiently
numerous in the city to be noticed in letters written to his wife by
Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, a member of the House from New York.
Harpers Monthly, April, 1879, p. 745.
It is Warden who noted the following sign on one of the shops in the
city, “‘Peter Rodgers, saddler from the green fields of Erin and tyranny
to the green streets of Washington and liberty.”
3 United States law, May 6, 1812. A similar policy marked the
conditions imposed on the turnpike companies both in the Congres-
sional and Maryland charters.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 501
thereafter made in building the canal.!. The work was resumed,
but was interrupted during the season of 1814 by the invasion
of the city and the consequent loss and disturbing influence
on business, so that it was not until the fall of 1815 that the
canal was pronounced practicable for loaded boats to pass
through.” The unfriendly and indifferent attitude of the public
mind towards this undertaking, and especially at the period in
the history of the country when canal and road building was
enlisting the money and interest of the people all through the
eastern section of the United States, was directly in contrast
with the course of such an enterprise as building a bridge across
the Potomac. At the very outset the project brought together
the two communities of Alexandria and Washington, except
citizens in the western section of the latter interested in the
river front adjoining Georgetown who regarded their interests
as joined with Georgetown and who in 1801 contributed to
the expense of clearing the channel below Mason’s Island.
While the bridge bill was making its slow way through congress
and the citizens of Georgetown both in their corporate capacity
and as individuals were protesting and petitioning, the citi-
zens of Washington were providing a ferry service from the
end of Maryland Avenue to Alexander’s Island.’
To the latter, called, later on, Bridgepoint, the citizens of
Alexandria were opening a road from their town.‘
1 The writer of a communication in the Intelligencer of March 14, 1812,
regards these restrictions as salutary, and in an account of the canal
in the issue of Oct. 27, 1815, it is stated these provisions were inserted
at the desire of the company.
2 The eastern terminus was at the foot of New Jersey Avenue, the most
easterly of the two proposed branches or forks of the canal. Owing to
the proximity to the navy-yard, and the wharfs on the Eastern Branch,
it was no doubt regarded as more important than the other branch,
which was to leave the main stem at South Capitol and G streets and to
follow the course of James Creek as it flowed southwest and on the east
side of Greenleaf’s Point to the Eastern Branch.
3 The common council granted an application of William M. Dun-
canson, one of the early large investors in city lots to keep a ferry at
this location. Journal, Vol. 1, April 23, 1806.
4 Intelligencer, Oct. 3, 1806. Two years later a company chartered
by congress took over this road, on which very little was done, and
completed it, including a bridge over Four Mile Run.
502 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
In addition the city council of Washington lent its aid by
erecting a pier at Maryland Avenue. It was at this period the
house of representatives for the first time passed the bridge
bill, but it failed in the senate.!| On the other hand, the George-
town corporation to provide campaign material paid a stenog-
rapher $10 per day to report the senate debate on the bridge
bill, and ordered 500 copies to be printed, including the docu-
ments relating to the controversy.?, At the next session the
long controversy was closed by the enactment of the law of
Feb. 5, 1808, but that did not quiet the contention of the people
of Georgetown that the navigation of the river and hence the
commerce of the town would be injured by the wooden bridge
resting on piles with draws over the two channels that led across
the Potomac. The committee of the house in a favorable re-
port on the bridge bill*® expressed the opinion that a bridge
with a draw “will permit the passage of vessels without much
detention,” referring to the delay in the process of getting
sailing vessels up to the entrance of such an opening. In effect,
however, the committee asserted the superiority of the rights
of the majority of citizens, for it was pointed out the benefit
to the general public justified the improvement. For, as was
claimed, the intended bridge would lessen by nearly six miles
(actually less than four miles) the distance between the capital
city and Alexandria as compared with the existing route via
Georgetown and the ferry. Besides, the further consideration
was emphasized throughout the discussion of the danger as
well as the delay in crossing such a body of water as the Potomac
in the open boats of the period. When on account of ice,
freshets or storms the passage was impossible, the only recourse
for the travelling public was the bridge at the Little Falls some
two miles up the river. The advantages of the shorter, surer
route, it was maintained, were to be enjoyed not merely by the
inhabitants of the two towns but by the people of the north
1 Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 2d Sess., December, 1806, Jan-
uary, 1807.
2 Georgetown Resolves, Jan. 6 and Feb. 17, 1807.
’ American State Papers. Miscellaneous, Vol.1,p.437. Jan. 21, 1806.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 503
and south, as the great highway between the two sections would
be shortened. As has already been shown, Georgetown, some
years prior to this date, had practically lost the navigation of
the Potomac through natural causes. In addition to the flats
or accumulated deposits where the river broadened out opposite
the site of the city, a similar obstruction in the Virginia channel
below the south end of Mason’s or Analostan Island had pre-
vented for many years the free approach of sea-going vessels
to the Georgetown harbor, although there was sufficient depth
for coasting vessels or those engaged in the home trade. The
form and extent of the flats are graphically shown on the en-
graved map of 1792. On the west side of the mass of river de-
posits ran the Virginia channel, and on the east the city channel,
while midway was the middle or squash channel. The separa-
tion of the waters into these three channels took place a short
distance south of Peter’s, later Easby’s, Point, below the end
of D Street, N. W. The formation of the flats bordered on
each side by the two channels continued south a short distance
beyond Greenleaf’s Point. But the middle channel ended its
course just below the bridge site by joining the city channel.1
One of the theories advanced at the time was that the middle
channel was created after the great freshet of 1784.?
Some five years after the completion of the causeway between
Analostan Island and the mainland it was found the increased
volume of water diverted on the east side of the island had
not swept away the channel obstruction at the south end. The
Georgetown authorities decided upon making another effort.
A year had passed since the completion of the bridge, and while
there is no record showing what had been the effect of that
structure upon the volume of the commerce of the town, yet
1 The first recorded soundings of the river are found on the engraved
map, while the second are given on the map of 1797. The condition
of the three channels south of Analostan Island is shown by the figures
giving the depths in feet of the shallowest parts as follows :—
Washington Channel 1792 fi 1797 5
Middle Channel 1792 9 1797 ff
Virginia Channel 1792 16 1797 14
2 United States vs. Morris Testimony, p. 494.
504 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the tide of land travel had fallen off. The receipts from the
ferry had decreased one-half. For since the bridge had been
built the mail stages and other travel of the post road or prin-
cipal highway no longer passed through Georgetown and then
to the foot of Wisconsin Avenue and to the flat-bottomed boats
propelled by oars at both ends that made the trip to Analostan
Island.!
The builder of the causeway, Thomas Moore, proposed another
plan to the Georgetown authorities at this time. It was ap-
proved by the corporation of Georgetown, and an appropria-
tion of $10,000 was made to defray the cost. During the sum-
mer of 1810 work was begun on the erection of wing dams on
the flats a short distance below Analostan Island and stretching
in an oblique direction to the south. The water coming down
the river instead of spreading over the flats between the middle
and the Virginia channels was to be directed into the former,
and gradually scour out the mud and make a deep waterway
all the way down below Greenleaf’s Point. In time it was
expected the dams could be extended across the Virginia chan-
nel and all the river trade would be confined to the middle
and city courses. The former was to be a highway of sufficient
depth to allow vessels of the greatest draught of the day to
come to Georgetown.? However, before an actual start was
made the Georgetown authorities evidently considered whether
even a town corporation had jurisdiction over such a public
highway as the Potomac River to enable it to do what was
contemplated. It was recalled that authority was obtained
from congress to erect the causeway and also to build the two
bridges. At the same time it was maintained that what was
proposed was not to interfere with or injure the navigation but
only to remove an obstruction, thus resulting in an improve-
ment of the river. As the corporation of the city of Washing-
ton was authorized by congress to make any improvement in
the navigation of the Potomac, that body was consulted and
1 Warden, p. 134.
2 United States vs. Morris. Testimony, p. 494. Report of Thomas
Moore to the corporation of Georgetown.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 505
its approbation received.1_ This action was based on a report
of a committee of the council which made an examination of
the river. The council was informed that a depth of from
twenty-two to thirty feet at full tide was found in the Eastern
Branch as far up as the navy yard, with seventeen and one-half
feet of water over the mud bar at its mouth. In the city chan-
nel there were seventeen feet, shoaling to fourteen feet at the
Washington bridge. Above, the water fell to nine feet to the
foot of 17th Street, and from thence to the Georgetown channel
near Davidson’s wharf at the foot of D Street the depth was
never less than five and one-half feet. Attention was called by
the committee to the injury done by the washing from the shore,
especially, it was pointed out, along a street that “has lately
been opened through the bluff” to Barry’s old wharf at the foot
of New Jersey Avenue. Dredging was the remedy proposed, but
nothing was done. The work on the wing dam was begun by
the Georgetown authorities with vigor, and considerable prog-
ress had been made in assembling the necessary materials
when injunction proceedings were begun in the District circuit
court by the Washington Bridge Co. and others.? The in-
junction was granted, and the wing dams, the most ambitious
plan proposed for river improvement up to that time, and for
many years later, were not built. While the Georgetown citi-
zens had lost in the contest which they carried on with so much
spirit for the preservation of the commerce of the town, yet
they did not abandon all effort. They continued to do what
they could. In the course of five years the mud machine was
again at work clearing away the bar in the Virginia channel.?
The promptness with which the bridge charter granted by
congress was made use of is a further indication of the intense
1 Journal Washington Common Council. Vol. 2, July 26, 1810.
Report of a committee on the Georgetown plan. Communication of
Thomas Moore describing his plan. Jntelligencer, Oct. 3, 1810.
2 The bill in full and the replies and other papers in the case. United
States vs. Morris. Testimony, pp. 454-528.
3 Intelligencer, June 16, 1815 and Nov. 27, 1816. In the issue of
Novy. 17, 1817, the statement was made that the channel had been
deepened from 7 to 14 feet.
506 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
public interest in the undertaking. The ink of the signature
of the president to the measure had not been dry ten days be-
fore a meeting was called by the commissioners named to re-
ceive subscriptions to the stock, and two days later the announce-
ment was made that books would be opened April 1st.’ In
four days all the stock had been subscribed, thus placing at
the command of the directors a possible fund of $200,000.?
The payments were made in instalments, and only one-half of
the capital was called for and expended.* Still the total was
greater than the cost of the canal.
At the end of a little more than a year after the charter was
secured, and in eleven months after the actual work was begun,
the bridge was opened for public use, although not entirely
finished.*
A few days previously the service which had been so anx-
iously expected was inaugurated when President Madison, in
his carriage, passed over the bridge on his way to Alexandria,
where he was entertained at dinner by the citizens of that
town. It may be presumed a good portion of the stock was
taken by citizens of Alexandria, for half of those named in the
bill to receive stock subscriptions were Alexandrians. When
the five directors were elected, three of them were residents
of Washington and two of Alexandria. In the course of a
couple of months after the bridge bill became a law, the Wash-
ington city authorities made an appropriation to open Mary-
land Avenue “at least thirty feet wide along its centre from
1st Street west to the Potomac River.” §
1 Intelligencer, Feb. 17 and 19, 1808.
* Manuscript minute book of the company. Property of Frederick
May. The directors elected were Daniel Carroll of Duddington,
who was chosen president, George Blagden, Frederick May, Robert
Young and William Harper.
3 Intelligencer, May 24, 1809. Description of the bridge.
4 The same, May 22, 1809.
5 The same, May 12, 1809.
6 City Ordinance, May 25, 1808. As the canal was shortly after-
wards opened across this thoroughfare at 3d Street, and as there is no
mention of a bridge, it seems probable the avenue was not in use east
of that street.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 507
From the very outset the company made money, so that at
the end of the first six months a three and a half per cent dividend
was paid, and with the lapse of another half yearly period, the
dividend was increased to four per cent.!. Unlike the canal
charter granted the following year, no provision was made for the
public sharing in the profits of the business. However, the
life of the company was limited to sixty years, when the bridge
was to become the property of the United States. No charge
was to be collected on public property passing over the bridge
or from the troops of the United States or those of any state
or of the District of Columbia.
But while the canal and the bridges spanning wide streams
that separated the city on the east and the west and the south
from the surrounding country were being promoted by private
enterprise, the city fathers early began the use of city funds in
securing the same object within the city, adequate means of
communication. A large proportion of the limited resources of
the municipality — the biggest item in the annual city budget
— was in the early years of necessity used in opening streets
within the city itself, for, with the exception of Pennsylvania
Avenue from the capitol to Georgetown, F Street from 7th to 15th
streets and the eastern section of Maryland Avenue where the post
road entered the city, their predecessors the city commissioners
had spent but little money on the avenues and streets which
had been laid out on paper with such unprecedented lavishness.
As these streets, with the open places formed by the intersection
of the streets and the avenues, and the reservations belonged
to the United States, there was no power outside of congress
that could alter a line in the accepted plan.? In addition to
this unusual feature of city government, the population had
settled in various sections of the wide area, really a group of
villages which must be connected, and this alone added enor-
mously to the annual street budget. The lack of compactness
1 Intelligencer, May 25, 1810. Dividend notice signed by S. Eliot,
Jr., treasurer of the Washington Bridge Co.
2 As early as April 5, 1806, John Breckinridge, attorney-general, in
an opinion prepared for the president, held that there ‘‘rests nowhere
a power to alter” the engraved plan of 1792, not even in congress itself.
508 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
in the location of the buildings, the great expanse of the streets
— few less than eighty feet in width — and the extent of the
public reservations, more especially the mall in the most popu-
lous and conspicuous part of the city, made it difficult for the
ordinary observer, accustomed to exactly the reverse conditions
in the cities of the day, to do justice either to the city in making
or to its prospects.!
As will be recalled in the sketch of the discussions when the
removal question was before congress, the hopelessness of it
all was pointed out, based on the appearance of houses scat-
tered and then in groups over an area exceeding that of any city
in the country.? In fact, for many years no attempt was made
to improve the entire width of such of the streets needed in the
daily life of the people, and no others were touched. As has
been seen, the act authorizing the opening of Maryland Avenue
stipulated that only thirty feet in the width of that thorough-
fare, which stretched a distance of 160 feet from building line
to building line, should be improved. The same method was
followed in opening up Pennsylvania Avenue, even when the work
was done by the government, and many years elapsed before
the 160 feet in width of its surface, less the space for sidewalks,
were even macadamized. For the most part all that was at-
tempted in the first quarter of a century in street making was to
cover only a portion of the roadway with gravel. But even then
1 John Melish, an Englishman, who viewed the city from Capitol
Hill on an October day in 1806, states the buildings were numerous but
scattered over a large space, suggesting more the appearance of a thickly
settled country than a city. There were very few buildings east of the
capitol, so that, as he found, he ‘“‘ had travelled a good way into the city
before I saw it.”’ Travels through the United States. Belfast, 1818.
2 In the course of a communication printed in the Jntelligencer, June
22, 1813, the writer states: ‘‘Of the plan of the city of Washington, the
principal feature is magnificence. Its faults arise from the attention
to the magnificence of the design throughout to which in some respects
convenience has been sacrificed. . . . At present the inhabitants of
the city feel the effects of the plan, while we enjoy little from those
very admirable arrangements which do honor to the genius of Major
L’Enfant, in which his design abounds and which will be evident to
all when the plan is filled out. Posterity will bestow on him that praise,
a regret that he has not received those rewards which he amply merits.’’
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 509
the area improved was equal to and in many instances greater
than that undertaken in other cities of that period. For the
first seven years of the city government, however, even a gravel
surface was beyond the means available, and the public work
was confined to opening and repairing streets.! The sidewalks,
when any were provided, which was not always done, were
gravelled, and in the case of the first laid, which was on Pennsyl-
vania Avenue between the capitol and the president’s house, the
chips from the stone-cutter’s chisel made in shaping the stones
for those structures were used by direction of the city commis-
sioners. No brick sidewalks were put down by the city govern-
ment until the year 1814, and then a special tax was laid.?
The first council was sanguine enough to make an appro-
priation of $100 for the placing of lamps “on the most public
avenues and streets,’ but there is no record that the law was
executed unless the lamps were maintained at private cost, as
no item for lighting appeared in the annual city budget again
for a good many years.®
While the municipal government, as the representative of in-
dividual property holders, was spending its slender resources
in providing means of communication within the urban bounds,
1A deseription of a typical street improvement of the period is
found in an advertisement of proposals in the Jntelligencer of Oct. 29,
1804, which specified ‘“‘for ploughing up, levelling and grading’’ north G
from 17th to 19th and 18th west from New York Avenue to. Pennsyl-
vania Avenue. Six years later (Intelligencer, Aug. 27, 1810), 7th Street
from Pennsylvania Avenue to the northern boundary was to be ‘“‘rounded
and gravelled,’’ 50 feet wide.
2 At that time the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue and the south
side of C Street, both between 6th and 7th streets, N. W., were thus im-
proved by means of a special tax of $2.50 per front foot on the abutting
lots. As early as the year 1802 the roadways of a portion of M Street and
of Wisconsin Avenue in Georgetown were paved with cobblestones and
curbing set. The expense was met by a front foot tax of $2. George-
town Ordinance, May 17, 1802.
3 The earliest provision of the sort made by the Georgetown corpora-
tion was in the year 1810, when an ordinance was passed authorizing
the placing of lamps when the owners of property on any paved street
shall request it and on the payment of a front foot tax of 5 cents, the
cost of lighting to be met by an annual tax on each householder on such
street of thirty cents for each story of the house.
510 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the general government, owning large tracts of land within the
same area, shared in the benefits for the first twenty years with-
out recognition of any incongruity or injustice.’ In addition the
city lots owned by the public were regarded by congress as
a source of revenue to meet expenditures made by the general
government on account of the public buildings. But after
the experience in 1802, when the market was tested, the con-
gressional dependence on such a source was limited. At that
time the superintendent of the city was directed to sell enough
of the lots “without an unwarrantable sacrifice” to pay the
Maryland loan of $200,000, for which they were pledged. But
he was unable to do so.
As directed by the same law, the superintendent did offer
at public sale, continued from day to day for a month, lots sold
prior to the year 1796, when the purchasers had failed to make
the stipulated payments. The proceeds of the sales extending
over such a period amounted to only a little more than one
half of the first instalment of $50,000 of the Maryland loan.
The depreciation in values was such that only a portion of the
purchase money agreed to be paid nine years before and still
due was realized.2, The proceeds of the sale were applied to
the payment of the loan and the balance as well as the other
Maryland loans were paid from the federal treasury. Occa-
sional sales of lots supplied the funds to maintain the offices
of the superintendent and the surveyor of the city, the latter
1So fully accepted was the theory of the care of the streets as a
purely municipal function, that there is no record in the early years of
an attempt to secure the help of congress. What the expectations of
citizens in this particular had been may be inferred from statementsin
a letter written in 1837 by Daniel Carroll of Duddington, who asserted
that he remembered perfectly ‘‘that the general opinion was, that so
great was the gift, that the citizens would never be subject to taxa-
tion for the improvement of the streets.’’ Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 11,
p. 219.
? Report of the superintendent. American State Papers. Miscella.,
Vol. 1, p. 337. A typical case is shown in a court suit. In 1793 Morris
and Greenleaf agreed to pay $287 for two lots at the northwest corner
of 18th and K streets, N. W. Seven years later they were resold by
the commissioners for $216, and the purchase money being still unpaid
they were again sold for $80. C.C. Reports. Cranch, Vol. 1, p. 269.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 511
having been created by the law of 1803. The government as
a lot owner shared the same fate as the individual, as its prop-
erty also became unsalable. No doubt such a condition, espe-
cially in the absence of any definite government policy, resulted
for the time at least in the conservation of this class of the public
property. It spelled ruin to numbers of lot owners, while at
the same time an excellent purpose was served in checking the
spread of the pernicious ground rent system. Of so little
consequence were the public lots in the current thought of the
time, that they did not even attract the attention of the class
of people who are ready with schemes for making use of govern-
ment property. Some nine years passed before an attempt
was made even from such a source. Then a petition was re-
ceived in the house asking that the public lots be sold and the
proceeds used as a fund for the proposed National University.!
But the committee to which the paper was referred informed
the house that the value of the property fell short of the amount
required. Nothing more was done. With the exception of an
occasional sale, the public holdings of this character remained
intact for more than twenty years.
Quite different was the course pursued relative to the large
tracts of unoccupied land known as reservations, which were
designed by L’Enfant to be laid out as parks and adorned by
public buildings and by statuary and fountains. No attempt
was made for nearly fifty years to adorn the city at federal
expense with parks and fountains except in the case of the
grounds about the capitol and the president’s house. For
the first ten years congress did nothing at all. The citi-
zens found a use for these public spaces, as well as for the
unoccupied lots and the streets which extended on paper far
into the country or the rural city area. In some cases the
fences about the original holdings had not been disturbed,
and within waving crops of corn and other grains rewarded
the industrious husbandman who ran his furrows without
thought of the lines of the paper streets and avenues.” In
1 Annals of Congress, 11th Cong., 3d Sess., Feb. 18, 1811.
2 A curious illustration of the rural state of the city is found in
512 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
fact, so entirely without use for residence purposes was the
largest part of the city’s area that sections of the unopened
streets were included with the adjoining squares and culti-
vated. How much in anticipation of the needs of the city was
the provision made is evident from the circumstance that it
was not until the year 1820 that enclosures of city streets and
avenues were forbidden, but then under such conditions that
probably little change was made.!
It was a city ordinance that restricted the enclosure of streets,
not an act of congress. The money spent on opening and
improving the thoroughfares came from the local tax payers.
The exceptions for the first quarter of a century occurred in the
years 1803 and 1807 when money from the federal treasury
was expended on Pennsylvania Avenue between the capitol,
the president’s house and the public offices.”
At the same time such appropriations merely supplemented
municipal expenditures for the same purpose. The first
general recognition by congress of any responsibility for the
care of streets is to be found in the clause of the city charter
of 1820. But that was inadequate as well as uncertain, as it
provided for reimbursing the city for the cost of improving
sections of streets in front of government property from the
proceeds of the sale of public lots. When some of the unnamed
avenues in the city plan came to be designated, the city council
was the sponsor. The federal surveyor of the city was given
an advertisement in the Intelligencer, of June 22, 1813, offering for
sale a large quantity of rye growing on a lot of about ten acres on Kast
Capitol Street, ‘‘near the Capitol.”
1 City Ordinance, May 26, 1820. A fence could not be erected in a
street or the street obstructed without first obtaining a written permit
from the mayor. The mayor was also given authority to permit
enclosures to remain when it could be done without public inconven-
ience.
2 Message from the president of the United States transmitting
accounts stating the several sums expended, etc., in Washington,
Dec. 23, 1806. Statement of Joseph Elgar, commissioner of public
buildings.: 22d Cong., 1st Sess., House Report, No. 291, Feb. 15,
1832.
* Res. City Council, Oct. 19, 1818. However the approval of the
president of the United States was sought and obtained. The ave-
nues named at that time were Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, and Indiana.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 513
authority to make subdivisions of squares and lots and also to
fix the building line and level of the streets. The scope of the
management of the streets by the municipality finds an illus-
tration in the creation by the city council of the office of sur-
veyor of the city with the duty “to lay down, point out and
mark the line and graduation” of the city thoroughfares. As
all the records relating to the survey of the city and the city
squares were in the custody of the superintendent and he re-
fused to relinquish the custody, although perfectly willing to
allow the municipal officer to make copies, the city council
declined to confirm the nomination of Robert King, and instead
appointed Benjamin H. Latrobe who was the federal surveyor.
He was paid for his services out of the city treasury.”
There was, however, a large proportion of the public property
that remained unfenced, and there the cows of the citizens were
sent to pasturage, thus reproducing for the first time in a lati-
tude as far south as Washington a condition familiar through-
out New England where the commons used as a cow pasturage
was a feature of the town site. In the course of time the grasp-
ing nature of man wrought a change. Portions of the public
domain, including the mall from 3d Street to the Potomac were
fenced in by individuals who had not even the shadow of the
claim put forth by the original proprietors.2 Corn and other
crops were planted. The citizens generally were debarred.
As their accustomed privilege was taken away, they became
indignant. Finally a meeting of the citizens of the first and
second wards which at that time comprised the entire city west
of 2d Street, W. was held,t and a memorial to the president
was adopted protesting against the enclosure of the city pas-
ture grounds by individuals. Not only were the commons of
that day the mall, but also the squares designated for the na-
tional church, the judiciary and the mint.’ But the fences were
defended. It was claimed that under the deeds of trust exe-
1 City Ordinance, Aug.3, 1815. Journal Common Council. Vol. 4,
July 31, 1815.
2 Jour. Bd. of Alder. Vol. 5, Aug. 3, Sept. 12, and Oct. 10, 1815.
3 Intelligencer, Aug. 28, 1834. 4 Same, Sept. 21, 1811.
5 Same, Sept. 28, 1811.
VoL. I—2.L
514 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
cuted by the landowners, they had the right to continue in the
occupation of the land until it was occupied for the use of the
United States. “Several of the proprietors,” it was stated,
“have up to this moment preserved their enclosures.” + Six
years previously congress had been asked to give permission
to individuals to enclose the unoccupied public ground on the
condition of cultivation and improvement.? The request was
not granted. Now it was publicly shown that the public
grounds were being used for private purposes without authority.
For the first time since the land had been acquired by the
government such a question was raised. There had been no
legislation by congress on the subject of the control and uses
of the property authorized to be acquired by the residence law
of 1790. By that measure the entire control was vested in the
president.
The squatter contest, as it might be termed, was carried to
congress, with the result that by two measures* congress en-
larged the powers of the president and authorized him to allow
the corporation to occupy and improve for public purposes
any part of the public property while the other enactment
conferred on the president the power to lease for a term not
exceeding ten years the public grounds “on such terms and
conditions as in his judgment may best effect the improvement
of the said grounds for public walks, botanic gardens or other
public uses.” * The apparent purpose of the legislation was
to enlist the aid of private enterprise in developing public prop-
erty, for there was no suggestion then or for many years later of
the policy which has been followed so successfully for the past
thirty years, due to a change in public opinion and which has
not only placed on an equitable basis the financial relations
of the federal government to the District but liberally uses
1 [ntelligencer, Sept. 26, 1811.
2 Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 36, 1805.
§ United States Laws, May 4, and July 5, 1812.
4 Wight years later the president gave permission to the Columbian
Institute, an association formed in Washington for scientific purposes
in 1816, to establish a botanic garden on the public grounds just west
of the capitol. Intelligencer, June 1, 1820, and Aug. 30, 1837.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS Sis
public money in making a city worthy to be the capital of the
nation. It was evident that congress had in mind more espe-
cially a change in the surroundings of Pennsylvania Avenue,
especially that section on the south side between 6th Street
and the capitol. For the romantic beauty of the Tiber which
flowed in this locality near the city’s principal thoroughfare and
which was so much admired in the early days when its banks
were shaded by the luxuriant foliage of trees and floweringshrubs
had disappeared. The waters as they crossed Pennsylvania
Avenue from the north flowed into the canal and the old bed
of the stream to the south soon became “a pestiferous swamp,”
a fruitful source for many years “of the agues and bilious fevers
from which not a family escapes.’’! When the members of
congress returned to the city in the fall of 1811 they were in
dread of the bilious fever which had wrought its work of death
in the city during the summer and which was attributed to the
unfinished canal.2 But whatever the purpose of the legisla-
tion nothing of consequence was accomplished, as neither the
municipality nor individuals, except the Columbian Institute,
attempted to make use of the public property under such condi-
tions.
But something more was necessary, the city authorities
early realized, than to merely provide highways between the
groups of villages that formed the infant city or even open-
ing neighborhood streets. For the produce of the adjoining
country must be attracted to the city, not merely to benefit
the local market and local stores, but there was also the influence
of the conception which dwindled, as experience ripened, of
the new city as a great commercial centre like Baltimore. For
many years were to elapse before it was realized that the capi-
tal city of the nation was to prove an exception in the history of
the development of cities and that it was to grow great merely
as a centre of population and without the usual aids of com-
merce and manufactures. At that time, however, it was recog-
1 Intelligencer, Feb. 22, 1822.
2 Memoirs and letters of Dolly Madison, p. 81. Mrs. Madison to
Mr. and Mrs. Joel Barlow, Nov. 15, 1811.
516 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
nized that if the main thoroughfares in Montgomery County
led to Georgetown but not to Washington, citizens of the latter
place would be at a great trade disadvantage. At any rate,
in the absence of contemporary comment on the ordinance
passed at the very first session of the city council in the fall
of 1802 for “opening, clearing and making passable for wagons”’
14th Street from F Street to the northern bounds of the city,
it is quite evident this law was an effort to correct such a defect
in the position of the city. For it must be borne in mind that
the northern boundary of the city west of 7th Street coincided
exactly with the course of the old post road between Baltimore
and Georgetown. One of the roads to Frederick was brought
to this entrance to Georgetown via the Rock Creek Church
Road and the Columbia Road of to-day. On the other hand,
the southern portion of 14th Street touched what was even
then becoming the principal centre of the city, although then
merely a narrow fringe of buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue
between the capitol and the president’s house.!
The Centre Market was located there and there also in the
fall of 1801 was removed from Capitol Hill the office of the
Intelligencer, the only newspaper in the city,’ and right across
Pennsylvania Avenue, at the northwest corner of that thorough-
fare and 6th Street, William Duane, printer and leading Re-
publican politician of Philadelphia, had established a book-store
and printing office. His only rival in business and the first in
the field, Rapine, Conrad and Co., were still at the corner of New
Jersey Avenue and B streets, S. E., where they had been since
the fall of 1800. Just to the west of Duane’s book-store had been
opened, in the year 1804, the Woodward Tavern by William
Woodward, the first hotel to be located in that part of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue which lies midway between the capitol and the
1 Thomas Law, in his pamphlet on the Washington City Canal
published in 1804, states that during the previous year, the greatest
number of buildings were erected along Pennsylvania Avenue and the
intersecting streets between the president’s house and the capitol.
2 Intelligencer, Oct. 12, 1807. Advertisement of sale of lots 4
and 5, Square 461, ‘‘now occupied by Samuel H. Smith and Miss
Finnigan.”
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 51g
president’s house.1_ In the same year the Centre House Inn was
opened by Solomon Myer at the southwest corner of 9th and
D streets, N. W.2 A year later Mr. Myer leased the Woodward
Tavern, and his former location was occupied by the printing
office of the Messrs. Andrew and George Way.? As early as
1806 the stage-coaches between Baltimore and Washington
stopped at the Pennsylvania House and Myer’s City Tavern,
as the place was called, which indicates that Pennsylvania
Avenue at that time was used in part at least as the post-road
through the city.‘
Farther west on the avenue at Nos. 1417-1423 was the two-
story and attic hotel of William Lovell, which in 1804 passed
under the direction of William Rhodes, who had managed for
a number of years the tavern at the northeast corner of 15th
and F' streets. Rhodes Hotel, as it came to be known, continued
under the same management for eight years, when James
McLeod became the proprietor and revived the original name
of the Washington Hotel, which he conducted until the spring
of 1815.° In the meantime Rhodes’ old stand at the northeast
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 28, 1804. Notice of the opening of the hotel.
2 The same, Oct. 24, 1804.
3The same, July 29, 1805, and May 12, 1806. It is inferred that
one of the brothers was a member of the printing firm of Way and
Groff whose name appears in a Washington imprint as early as 1801.
4 The Pennsylvania Tavern came under the management of George
W. Lindsay upon the expiration of Mr. Myer’s lease on the 20th of
June, 1808. In the summer of 1810 John Davis became the proprietor
and named the house the Indian Queen Hotel. It soon became the
leading hostelry in the city. The Metropolitan Hotel of to-day occu-
pies a portion of this site. For a short period it was known as
MeKeowins. Intelligencer, Sept. 15, 1815.
5 An unusual feature of the tavern of that day was provided by Mr.
McLeod, who announced in an advertisement (Intelligencer, July 14,
1814) he had added two rooms for bathing to his establishment. The
first mention of such a facility for the general public is to be found in
an advertisement of J. Wheaton (Intelligencer, Aug. 1, 1812), who states
he has ‘‘warm, temperate, and cold baths which he offers for the use of
his fellow-citizens. Terms, three warm and four cold baths for 100
cents.’ No location is mentioned. It may be inferred that this ven-
ture was not successful. What came to be known as the Washington
Public Baths were established by Frederick Shuck (Intelligencer, June
3, 1813), in a building on the north side of C Street, between 43 and
518 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
corner of 15th and F streets, N. W., had a new proprietor in
Joseph M. Semmes, who continued there until 1807. Then the
place became a boarding-house under the management of Mrs.
Suter. In the year 1814 the property became the home of
the Bank of the Metropolis.
In some respects it is possible to trace the development of
what became the principal centre of the city in the fluctuating
and uncertain fortunes of the hotels; for nearly a fifth of the
nineteenth century had passed before the hotel business be-
came firmly fixed in the central section. Until nearly the close
of this period three hotels closely grouped about the capitol
apparently had the chief part of what prosperity there was in
keeping a Washington hotel. For while during the sessions
of congress the patronage was good, yet, owing to the prefer-
ence for boarding-houses, the taverns of the day did not enjoy to
the full even the business that was available for only a part
of each year.
The two Pennsylvania Avenue hotels, separated by a distance
of eight blocks, had a struggling time in the early years, while
those in the vicinity of the capitol did not fare much better, due
no doubt in part to the short business season, and then to the
competition of the boarding-houses where the congressional
“messes,” as they were called, or groups of congenial spirits
ate and slept. About Davis’s tavern and later on about the
Washington tavern as well as about the Capitol Hill hotels
sprang up the boarding-house, and as both occupied the same
class of building — the two-story and attic house of the day —
there was not much to choose from in the exterior appearance.
The tavern enjoyed the advantage of a popular social centre
of the day, and generally the birthday balls and other festivities
6th streets, N. W. (lot 6, Square 490). (Intelligencer, Feb. 22, 1816.)
The water was piped from the spring in that square.
1 The preference shown boarding-houses is indicated no doubt by
the course of members of congress in this respect. According to the
printed lists of “Places of abode of members of both Houses,” the early
form of the Congressional Directory, in 1805, 18 per cent lived in
hotels, in 1807, 15 per cent, in 1809, 11 per cent and in 1816, 20 per
cent.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 519
were held there. It is probably because the tavern was a place
for gatherings of all sorts that the boarding-houses were grouped
about them.! The oldest hotel in use during this period was
Tunnicliff’s on A Street, just east of the southeast corner of Ist
and A streets, N. E.2) What was apparently a smaller structure
was erected prior to 1802 by Daniel Carroll on the square, now
a part of the capitol grounds, bounded by A, B and 1st streets
and Delaware Avenue, N. E.2 The most notable hotel struc-
ture of the day was erected in 1805 by Daniel Carroll on 1st
Street between East Capitol and A streets, S. E. It was the
centre building of three three-story structures, constituting
what became known as Carroll Row and was said to contain
fifty rooms.*
1 What appears to be a rather complete list of a man’s wardrobe of
that period is found in an advertisement in the /ntelligencer of June 22,
1807, in which Samuel Speake, auctioneer, gives notice that he offers for
sale at his auction room on F Street the property of Daniel M. Neall
seized for boarding and lodging by Mrs. Thompson at the Six Build-
ings: to wit, a black surtout coat, black cloth coat, pantaloons and vest,
three pairs of boots, and two pairs of shoes, one blue cloth coat, three
blue cloth military coats, four new ruffled muslin shirts, seven new plain
shirts and one linen shirt, one pair of cloth pantaloons, three flannel
jackets, one pair of drawers, three sheets, two pillow cases, two pairs
of silk hose, one pair of gloves, with a great variety of other wearing
apparel.
2'The hotel was conducted by William Tunnicliff, 1794-1804; by
Pontius D. Stelle from 1804-1805 and by Samuel J. Coolidge, 1810-
1812. In 1814 Robert Long was the proprietor and was followed by
John McLeod.
3 Pontius D. Stelle was the first proprietor and left it finally in 1804.
He was succeeded by William R. King, who had kept a tavern near the
navy-yard, and then by Frost and Quinn. (/ntelligencer, Noy. 14, 1806.)
George W. Lindsay, the next proprietor, called the place the Lindsay
House (/ntelligencer, Oct. 19, 1807), and remained there until 1809.
Robert Long was a tenant for about a year, when he was succeeded
by B. H. Tomlinson, who gave it the name of the City Hotel. It was
known as Tomlinson’s Hotel when it was destroyed by the British.
4 Pontius D. Stelle was the first proprietor, remaining there from 1805
to 1809. (Intelligencer, Nov. 13, 1805.) He was succeeded by Robert
Long, who after a year’s experience gave up his lease. After the year
1810 there is no record that the building was occupied for six years
for hotel purposes. Then it was leased by N. L. Queen and christened
Queen’s Hotel. (Intelligencer, Jan. 5, 1816.)
520 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
It was a boarding-house*that was the nucleus of the famous
Franklin House on the north side of I Street or Pennsylvania
Avenue, between 20th and 21st. But it was not until 1813 or
some dozen years after the proprietor, William O’Neal, started
in the business that it arose to the dignity of a tavern. Atan
early period the enterprise of the proprietor led him to run
stages between his place and the capital for the use of the mem-
bers of congress who lived at his house. Beyond O’Neal’s a
few members of congress found lodgings in the Union Tavern at
Georgetown, where Mr. McLaughlin was the host until about
the year 1807, when he was succeeded by William Crawford."
It was in the central section of the city the pioneer theatre
building was erected and where on the 16th of November,
1804, the opening performance was given. As the result of
several public meetings a company was formed, and sufficient
money was secured by the sale of stock to buy a site at thé
northeast corner of 11th and C streets, N. W., and put up a
building. The enterprise was financed with difficulty, as more
than a year passed after the building was started before it was
completed, and in the last months the device was resorted to of
disposing of twelve passes at $200 each, subject to redemption
after seven years.?, Here on the Tiber at 12th Street was built
the first corporation wharf,’ and when in the same year the city
council provided for holding fairs “for the sale of all kinds of
cattle, goods, wares and merchandise” in May and November
of each year, the place selected by the mayor was the Mall
“extending from the bridge at Centre Market to the river
Potomac.” * In addition to the opportunities for selling mer-
chandise, premiums were offered for the best specimens of the
1 Advertisement of the trustees offering the property for sale.
Intelligencer, May 6, 1807.
? Karly Theatres in Washington City. A.I. Mudd. Coll. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 5. The first board of directors of the company was composed of
John P. Van Ness, Samuel Harrison Smith, Robert Brent, William
Brent and Thomas Law.
’ City Ordinance, July 24, 1804. The city also built a wharf at the foot
of 17th Street. The wharfage charges were a source of city revenue.
* Intelligencer, Sept. 14, 1804. The first fair was held in November,
1804, but the fourth held in May, 1806, proved to be the last.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 521
various kinds of live stock sold during the fair. The city au-
thorities not only provided by the opening of 14th Street, which
with the other roads would enable the people of the adjoining
state of Maryland to come to the city without going to George-
town but they sought to attract them there by the old Mary-
land custom of holding fairs — annual gatherings where busi-
ness could be done, acquaintances renewed and the excitement
and pleasures of the town could be enjoyed and experienced.
When the Washington Library was opened in the year 1812,
the location selected was a room on the first floor of a house
owned by Esias Travers on the south side of Pennsylvania
Avenue, between 13th and 133 streets, N. W. At that time it
was thought to be a little too far west, but there it remained for
five years. ‘The year previous the Union Circulating Library
had been started by Joseph Mulligan, a Georgetown bookseller,
but at the time the Washington enterprise began he had found
it was not meeting expenses and made a public appeal for more
generous support, which was evidently given, for the library
continued until the year 1819, when the books were sold at
auction.!. The constitution of the Washington Library was
based upon that of the Alexandria Library and was prepared
by a committee appointed at a meeting held by those interested
the first month of the year 1811.2. Subscriptions were solicited
by a committee consisting of John Hewitt, Rev. James Laurie,
Samuel H. Smith, William James, James H. Blake, Henry
Herford, Robert Brent, Joel Barlow, William Cranch, John Law,
Franklin Wharton, Thomas Munroe and JosephStretch. The re-
sponse was of such a character that in the course of two months a
meeting of the shareholders was held and directors were chosen.*
1 Intelligencer, March 14, 1812, and May 20, 1819. Catalogues
were published in 1813 and in 1815. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 7, p. 34.
2 The same, Jan. 26, 1811. The journal of the meetings of the
directors of the library company in three manuscript volumes is in the
library of congress and was drawn from by W. Dawson Johnston
in his History of the Washington Library Co. and Other Local Li-
braries, in Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 7.
?The same, April 2, 1811. The directors were as follows: Rev.
James Laurie, president; Buckner Thurston, Samuel H. Smith,
William James, John Hewitt, Abraham Bradley, Jr., and Joseph
522 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Jonathan S. Findlay, who was the principal of a school on F
Street near 13th, was in charge as librarian when the opening
day of March 21, 1812, came around. The library was opened
for two hours, two days in the week, but like all libraries of
the kind only shareholders were allowed to take out books.
In less than three years the collection contained 900 volumes,
and a catalogue was printed.!
At last the city was supplied with what had been recognized
for a number of years as an important need. As will be re-
called the trustees of the public schools in 1804 proposed a
library as one of the branches of the school system, and some
five years later a plan was discussed, more elaborate in its
scope, of establishing a library for the county of Washington
to occupy a building that should have for a site an entire square.”
For five years the library continued with growing success, and
then what was thought a mistake in its original position was
corrected when it was removed to the book-store of Gideon
Davis on Pennsylvania Avenue near 11th Street. Mr. Davis
became the librarian, and before his term of service ended
three years later the collection numbered 1238 volumes and a
second catalogue was issued. It was then open daily except
Sunday.
In the meantime, by act of congress of April 18, 1814, the
library company had a charter which was similar in its provi-
sions to that of the first chartered library in the District, the
Columbian Library of Georgetown, which had been made a
body corporate by act of congress of Jan. 31, 1804.2 It is
apparent the Columbian Library went out of existence some
time before the year 1810, as at that time the Union Circulating
Library was established.
Stretch. The shares cost $12 and the annual assessment was $3.
Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 7, pp. 22 and 29.
1 After the destruction of the library of congress by the British
the use of this library was tendered to congress as was also the case
with the Union Circulating Library of Georgetown.
2 Intelligencer, Aug. 21, 1809.
* The incorporators were Stephen B. Balch, Joseph Nourse, Charles
D. Green, John Craven, Francis Lowndes, Jr. and George French.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 523
The opening of 14th Street was the first long stretch of street
improvement undertaken by the city government. A year later
in 1803, while federal ‘officers were spending public money on
Pennsylvania Avenue between the capitol and the president’s
house, to an extent that remained without a parallel for many
a year, the city fathers attempted to do something with the
section of that thoroughfare between the capitol and 15th
Street, E. As the word “repairing” is used in the local
ordinance, it may be inferred that this portion had already
been opened. It is not unlikely that, to some extent at
least, the new street followed the line of the old road from the
ferry.
The city appropriation was supplemented by a contribution
from the bridge company which bore the heavy expense, as it
was termed, of getting in shape the section down the hill to
15th Street. While the share in the improvement undertaken
by the bridge company was voluntary, that was not the case
with the upper bridge company ; for the city fathers, a year later,
made as a condition of opening East Capitol Street, from 1st to
18th streets, E., that the company should make a road from that
point to the entrance of the bridge that was then being erected.”
But a more direct connection with the great highway between
Baltimore and Frederick, and more especially with Montgomery
County, was sought by an extension of 14th Street, north to the
Columbia Road of to-day, a distance of only about half a mile
and much shorter than the existing road via Florida Avenue to
Connecticut Avenue, and thence north along Columbia Road.
The city council appointed a joint committee “to wait” on Robert
Peter and Anthony Holmead’s heirs for the purpose of securing
their consent to the extension of New Jersey Avenue and 14th
Street through their lands “ until they shall intersect the road lead-
ing from Frederick Townby Rock Creek Church to Georgetown.’’*
1 Intelligencer, May 28, 1804.
2 City Ordinance, Nov. 29, 1805. The road to the bridge did not con-
form to the plan of the city. As late as 1817 it was referred to in a
city appropriation bill as ‘‘the road within the city leading from East
Capitol Street to the upper bridge over the Eastern Branch.”
3 Journal common council, Vol. 1, June 23, 1806.
524 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Earlier in the year a petition to congress from citizens of Wash-
ington had been presented in the house,’ asking that such a
road be opened. But no action was taken by congress, and
the council committee accomplished nothing. Up to this time
New Jersey Avenue, north of the capitol, had not been opened.
Three years later the improvement was authorized, and in the
same measure was included the opening of 7th Street, from Penn-
sylvania Avenue to the northern bounds.? Some ten years later
the writer of acommunicationin the Intelligencer stated that 14th
Street was the only road by which the centre of the city can be
entered direct from Montgomery County.’ In a vein of satirical
protest against the course of the city fathers, who were frequently
and freely criticised inthe columns of the newspapers, for neglect-
ing the general interests of the community, he asserted that
street improvements were decided upon by the city council on a
give-and-take policy, members casting their votes with the
understanding that those whose property was to be benefited
would in turn provide improvements in localities where their
property was situated.* It is quite evident from the attempts
made in 1806 that the opening of 14th Street had not accom-
plished what was expected four years earlier. But conditions
had changed. It was in the year 1806 that the corporation
decided to establish a tobacco inspection house on the Eastern
Branch.® Up to this time Georgetown had undisputed control
1 Annals, 9th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 324, January, 1806.
2 City Ordinance, Dec. 9, 1809.
3 Intelligencer, April 1, 1819.
4The charge of self-interest brought against the city fathers was
by no meansanewone. Five years previously a writer of a communica-
tion to the Intelligencer (Feb. 28, 1814) asserted that there had been no
session of the city council for the past three months, owing to lack, of a
quorum. He explained this indifference to the public business by as-
serting that as soon as the members had secured road improvements
before their own property, then they had no further interest in city
affairs.
5 Letter from John Law and Daniel Carroll of Duddington, offering,
as a donation, lots 13 and 14, Square 801, between M and N and 3d and
4th streets, S. E. Journal Common Council, Vol. 1, Oct. 20, 1806.
City Ordinance, Nov. 10, 1806. Making an appropriation to erect
the building on that site.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 525
of the tobacco trade for a large area of country and only the
previous year had substituted for the old Maryland law an elab-
orate law.1 It was a struggle entered into between the two
towns for a declining trade. Fifteen years before this period
three inspection houses and six inspectors were provided for
Georgetown,” while in 1806, even before trade began to decline
under the influence of the Berlin decree that affected most
vitally the foreign commerce of the United States, two inspec-
tion houses and two inspectors were sufficient.
The Washington authorities started modestly enough with
one inspection house and one inspector, and as the event proved,
the business never required an enlargement. The establish-
ment of such a centre makes clear the need not only of opening
New Jersey Avenue, but also of directly connecting it with north-
ern Maryland. But tobacco was not the sole interest. Along
the Eastern Branch, a block to the west of the tobacco house
site, stood the sugar-house then occupied as a brewery by Dr.
John Coningham. He had sold out the brewery which he with
others had established in the western section of the city.’
Both the navy-yard and the arsenal became industrial centres
of importance soon after the opening of the century. The
building and equipment of ships and the repair of guns, the
making of gun carriages, etc., gave employment to a consider-
able number of workmen who made their homes in the imme-
diate locality. The navy-yard settlement, or Navy Yard Hill,
as it was termed, was always the largest of the two, and very
early became one of the most flourishing of the villages or groups
of settlements within the urban limits.*| While the dry-dock
1 Georgetown Ordinance, July 1, 1805.
2 Maryland law, Dec. 21, 1790.
3 Intelligencer, Sept. 2,1805. As the Washington brewery, the Eastern
Branch establishment continued in business for a good many years. It
was the only one in the city. (Intelligencer, June 11, 1807, and Dee. 28,
1811.) The brewery of Herford and Sons at the southwest corner of
Pennsylvania Avenue and 9th Street, N. W., was only in use for a few
years. (Intelligencer, July 4, 1808.)
4 A writer of a communication in the [ntelligercer of March 26, 1816,
attributes the development of the navy-yard section to the policy
adopted in 1802 by the navy department in not employing slaves.
526 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
scheme of the president was not carried out, yet the interests of
the establishment did not suffer. Events beyond the control
of the peace-loving Jefferson required in the course of a few
years not only navy vessels to be kept afloat but manned and
equipped for service in the Mediterranean, and then later
additional vessels were built in consequence of the British ag-
gressions on American commerce. Latrobe, who prepared
the report on the dry-dock, was soon more usefully employed on
a plan for the arrangement of the yard, the erection of the wall
and of the gate at the foot of 8th Street and the building of the
various structures.!. The year 1805 marks the beginning of a
period of activity in the yard, which continued for a number
of years. Up to the year 1806 more than double the money
spent in any navy-yard in the country had been expended
in the Washington yard.? In that year over two hundred men
were employed, and the work which up to that time had been
confined to the repair and equipment of vessels was broadened
out to include their building. Three gunboats, wooden vessels,
of course, marked the beginning of shipbuilding, and their cost
ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 each. In addition to the
buildings where the work was carried on, a house erected in
1801, east of the gate, was occupied by the second officer, while
Captain Thomas Tingey, the commandant, lived outside of the
yard, and then in the year 1807 the erection of a house for his
use was begun in the centre of the north portion of the grounds.
On the occasion of the launching of the United States brig, the
Hornet, the invited guests watched with interest “the opera-
tions of the steam engine lately erected, which was then at work.’’®
Besides the value to the community of the navy-yard in pro-
“The result is,’ he added, “‘white men with their families came and
built houses and soon made a town.”’
1 Latrobe’s plan approved in the year 1804-1805. Navy-yard,
Washington. History from Organization. Henry B. Hibben. 51st
Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 22, 1890.
* American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 103.
3 Intelligencer, May 14, 1811. Warden, in his Chorographical De-
scription, p. 37, states that in 1811 the public buildings at the navy-yard
were a workshop 900 feet in length and three large brick buildings for
the reception of naval stores.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 527
viding employment, it also provided a market for supplies of
various kinds. Not the least important were the ropes used
on the sail-propelled vessels of the day. The making of ropes
was not undertaken by the government, but was left to private
enterprise. From the rope walk of Richard Parrott on the north
side of R Street, near the head of 30th Street, came the ropes
that were used on the frigate President in the year 1809.1 At
that time there were two rope-making concerns in Washington.
One was under the management of Tench Ringgold and Na-
thaniel K. Heath in the square bounded by 3d, 44, I and K
streets, 5S. W.2. John Chalmers had a rope factory at the lower
end of Greenleaf’s Point,’ which was near the barracks, where a
small detachment of the regular army was stationed and where
in the year 1803 a building for use as an arsenal and designed
by George Hadfield was erected.4. To the Washington arsenal
were brought as a distributing centre guns from the government
manufactories at Harpers Ferry and Springfield and cannon
from the Foxall foundry near Georgetown, as well as arma-
ment that had seen service. Men were employed to mend and
clean guns and to provide fittings and carriages for the cannon.
As early as the year 1804 Andrew J. Villard, a Frenchman,
began his long term of service at the Washington arsenal, where
he invented a disappearing carriage for cannon. At one time
it was proposed to establish a gun foundry at Greenleaf Point,
but that was not done.® A powder magazine in addition to
the one near the Little Falls was early made a feature of the
buildings at the Point.
As these industries operated by the government expanded
with the growth of the country and the consequent enlargement
of the scope of public administration, the same influence was
1 Hibben, p. 43.
2 Intelligencer, Aug. 17, 1810 and June 21, 1814. The partnership
was dissolved and the business was continued by Heath. _ /ntelligencer,
Dee. 31, 1812, and in 1814 Daniel Renner was associated with Mr.
Heath.
3 The same, Nov. 2, 1810.
4 American State Papers, Military, Vol. 1, p. 179.
5’ The same, Vol. 1, p. 215. Letter of Henry Foxall, August, 1807.
528 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
manifested in the executive departments, the civil branches
of the government. It was not, however, until the first dec-
ade of the city as the seat of government was coming to a
close that the increase in the number of government employees
resulted in action by congress. After that body had been
informed of the crowded condition in the southwest executive
office, where all but one of the five departments were housed,
then an appropriation of $10,000 was made to purchase the
Blodgett Hotel building and a urther amount of $3628 was
expended in 1810 in fitting up the interior for the use of the
general post-office and the patent office. Up to that time the
twenty-five rooms available in the department building were
apportioned, eight to the war department, six to the navy de-
partment, four to the state department, to which the patent
office was attached and four to the post-office department.
The city post-office, the superintendent of the city and the
surveyor of the city had each one room.! Although attention
was called to the disorder and confusion of the records of the
government, both for the period preceding the adoption of the
constitution and afterwards, yet no specific provision was made
for their care and preservation. No change was made then
in the policy which has continued down to the present day, of
relying upon such arrangements as could be made in the de-
partment buildings for the storing of the old records.
The commercial interests of the city were further sought to
be advanced by the formation of the Commercial Co., with a
capital stock of $100,000.2 This new concern was located
at Barry’s wharf at the foot of New Jersey Avenue, a close neigh-
bor to the tobacco inspection house and the brewery.’ So
successful was this venture at the outset that a dividend of
1 Report of committee appointed to inquire into the state of the
ancient records, March 27, 1810. Message from the president trans-
mitting report of the superintendent of the city relative to the building,
Jan. 25, 1811.
2 Intelligencer, April 20, 1808. In the issue of Aug. 5, 1808, is an
advertisement of the Commercial Co., announcing wines, sugar, tea,
crockery ware for sale. Also that the highest price will be paid for
country produce.
* The same, Oct. 8, 1810.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 529
five per cent was paid at the close of the first six months.!_ Six
years later the capital stock was increased.2 No doubt the
career of the Washington company led Georgetown citizens
the same year to form the Georgetown Commercial Co., with
a capital of $500,000. However, in the course of the next
three years the Washington company had gone out of existence.4
While the commercial company was designed to accomplish
on a large scale what was done by individuals in providing a
market for the produce of the farmer and in turn supplying
him with groceries and clothing, a more ambitious as well as
patriotic scheme was developed. It grew out of the intense
public revolt against the oppressive trade regulations during
the Napoleonic period. National pride as well as the necessi-
ties of the situation, when commerce had come to a standstill,
aroused the people throughout the country to the importance
of developing domestic manufactures. It was this influence
that led one of the chambers of the city council to reeommend
that the members appear in homespun when they went in a
body on the 4th of July to pay their respects to the president.®
It was under such conditions that the Columbia Manufacturing
Co. was organized “for making cotton, wool, hemp, and flax
and the promotion of such other domestic manufactures as
may be thought advisable.” ® But it was the third attempt.’
In the course of a year enough stock had been subscribed to
warrant the company in making a beginning in spinning cotton.
A building was rented on Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th
and 15th streets, where the necessary machinery purchased in
Philadelphia was set up. But even at that time only 400 of
the 2000 shares par value $25 had been subscribed.® In less than
1 [ntelligencer, Feb. 8, 1809. 3 The same, Oct. 6, 1815.
2 The same, April 5, 1815. 4 The same, April 6, 1818.
5 Journal 1st Chamber, Vol. 3, June 20,1810. The earliest journal of
the city council that has been preserved shows that the official call on
that day was the custom in 1805.
6 Intelligencer, July 13, 1808. 7 Same, Feb. 15, 1809.
8 Same, Aug. 23, 1809. The plant was moved to E Street between 7th
and 8th streets, N. W., Oct. 19, 1810, and finally near Greenleaf Point.
9 Same, Nov. 24, 1809. Report of the president of the company,
Robert Brent, who was also the mayor of the city.
VOL. I—2™M
530 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
four years the property was offered for sale and the company
dissolved. These abortive attempts to establish manufactur-
ing plants and to broaden the trade of the city were not con-
fined to the area of the city. A manufactory of cotton twist
was located at Four Mile Run in Alexandria County.? A
mill on the property of Benjamin Stoddert at Bladensburg was
converted into a gun powder manufactory by his son-in-law,
Dr. Thomas Ewell, and associates.? But before the close of
a year the building was destroyed by fire. The business was
resumed, but in another year a new plant was built on the
Potomac canal about three miles from Georgetown,’ and the
Bladensburg works were continued after an interval of some
four years under a new management. Like the Foxall gun
foundry in the immediate vicinity, the Ewell enterprise was
primarily to furnish supplies to the government.’ In the
spring of 1813 the Georgetown Wool and Cotton Manufactory
was started in Mr. Parrott’s mill on Rock Creek, east of the
rope walk. The new establishment was near the Mill Road,
a section of which still exists, crossing P Street at 27th. It led
to Federal Mills, known in later years as Lyon Mills, which was
built by Joseph E. Rowles as early as 1795, and is the oldest
flour mill that remains, although it has not been used in recent
years. The old building stands on the Washington side of Rock
Creek, a short distance north of P Street. On the south side of
P Street, and on the same side of Rock Creek, stood a paper mill.
It occupied a portion of the Kalorama tract which was sold
by the owner of the property, Gustavus Scott, in the year
1800, with the agreement expressed in the deed that the pur-
chaser, Nicholas Lingan, was to erect a mill.” Five years
later Edgar Patterson became the owner, and it is supposed
1 Tntelligencer, April 1 and 13, 1813.
2 Same, Oct. 3, 1810.
3 Same, Oct. 17, 1811, and July 14, 1812.
4 Same, Sept. 15, 1813.
5 Same, Jan. 19, 1813.
§ Same, May 11, 1813. Associated with Mr. Parrott in this under-
taking were I. and W. Westerman, English manufacturers.
7 Land Records, Liber N, f. 183. Intelligencer, May 18, 1818, and
Dec. 29, 1821.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 531
the manufacture of paper began about that time.) What
proved to be the most enduring of all these enterprises were
glass works established by Edwards, Way and Co., on portions
of the two squares bounded by 21st, 22d and C streets and the
Potomac.” The product for the most part supplied the local
demand for window panes. The business was continued with
but one interruption of about a year, for thirty years. But
in spite of these hopes and efforts, manufacturing enterprises
did not flourish, and in the course of a decade practically had
about disappeared.* | Exactly why the capital city in this
respect differed from other places of the same size is difficult
to determine. The judgment of one contemporary attributes
the condition to “a mistaken notion of the large land proprie-
tors who hold their property at too high a rate.’”’® While
as late as 1816, the mayor in his annual message expressed the
conviction that “there is every prospect of this becoming a
commercial city in a few years.” ® There is no suggestion of
city council log rolling in the action taken soon after the com-
pletion of the Potomac Bridge in providing a direct communica-
tion between Maryland Avenue, and the centre of the city.
This was accomplished by erecting a bridge over the Tiber at
12th and continuing that thoroughfare through the mall south
to Maryland Avenue.’ About the same time 7th Street was
continued to Maryland Avenue, but the bridge over which this
thoroughfare was carried and which was built in the first in-
stance by the commissioners was approached at each end by
1 Land Records, Liber A, C., f. 93, July 5, 1811. Edgar Patterson
to Elie Williams, Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Duddington.
2 Intelligencer, Nov. 1, 1809, and Oct. 26, 1810. Description of the
plant, May 6, 1819.
3 Same, Feb. 13, 1840.
4 Same, May 138, 1819.
5 Same, March 25, 1811.
6 Journal Common Council. Vol. 4, June 17, 1816.
7A marked change had taken place in the notions of the relations
between the two sections divided by the Tiber, judging from the lan-
guage of the corporation law of July 24, 1804, ia providing for the first
wharf built by the city, for it was described ason the Tiber ‘‘at the termi-
nation of 12th Street W.,’’ as if there was nothing beyond that stream.
532 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
causeways through the belt of swampy ground on each side of
the Tiber and extending on the north side as far west as 12th
Street.
The section of 6th Street south of Maryland Avenue was
opened at this time to the two wharves at the foot of 6th and
7th streets, which were among the earliest in the city and the
only ones for many years along that section of the river front.
Some years passed before the two sections of 6th Street north
and south of the mall were joined.
The influence of the road making and canal building ac-
tivity throughout the eastern portion of the country in the early
part of the nineteenth century was felt in Washington, where
the main highways extending into Maryland and Virginia.
were still country roads. Toa large extent what was attempted
was in advance, if not of the needs of the city, certainly of the
financial resources of the citizens. For out of five turnpikes,
the construction of which were authorized by congress from
1808 to 1810, only two were built within a period of ten years.
One of these was the result of Alexandria capital and extended
from the Washington bridge to that city, following more closely
the river than the old Alexandria and Georgetown post road.
A bridge was built over Four Mile Run near its entrance into
the river, while presumably the existing road farther to the
west crossed that waterway by a ford.! A couple of years
later the company of Columbian Turnpikes, composed of Wash-
ington men, secured a charter to construct a road from the
same centre, west to the District line and toward the Little
River turnpike road, an important trade thoroughfare con-
necting Alexandria with Snickers Gap. By the same act the
company was authorized to build turnpikes in the District
from the city bounds towards Baltimore and Rockville. But
these enterprises lagged. The Rockville road on the line of the
extension of 7th Street was not built until some ten years later,
1The bill incorporating the Washington and Alexandria Turnpike
Co. became a law April 28, 1808. In the Intelligencer, of May 11,
1808, the announcement was made that the stock subscription book
was opened, and on Dec. 28 in the same medium appeared the call
for the fifth and last instalment. The capital was $20,000.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 533
and then not by this company.!. Within an equal period of
time the Baltimore Road was nearly completed.2, The com-
pany was able to build what is still known as the Columbia
Road in Alexandria County. It was the only source of revenue
from which four years later a dividend was declared. A few
weeks before the Potomac bridge was opened for travel, the
Washington and Alexandria Turnpike Co. was able to announce
that the bridge over Four Mile Run was passable for carriages
and horses. At the same time notice was given that a road
had been opened from the new highway at a point some three
quarters of a mile from the bridge to the Georgetown Road, so
that apparently the trade to Georgetown might flow along the
new road.° In the meantime a charter had been secured from
congress to provide for the improvement into a turnpike of
the old post road from Mason’s ferry to Alexandria, another
phase in the commercial struggle between Georgetown and the
other two towns.®
There is no further reference to this project, and it may be
concluded the work was not done. The value of the trade
of the country on the Virginia side of the river, which was a
potent factor in making Alexandria the most prosperous of
the three towns, received early recognition in the erection of a
bridge over the Potomac at the Little Falls. No attempt,
however, was made to change into a turnpike the road from
1 United States Law, Feb. 15, 1819, conferring on a Maryland com-
pany the rights of the Columbian Company to build the 7th Street pike,
now Georgia Avenue.
2 Intelligencer, April 19, 1817, and March 29, 1819.
3’ The same, Jan. 10, 1814. A semi-annual dividend of $8.14 per
share declared on the stock of the company of the Columbian Turn-
pikes.
4 The same, Feb. 6, 1809.
5 A road house known as Lindo’s Tavern had been opened at this
point the previous fall and near Sebastian’s Spring. Intelligencer, Nov.
28, 1808. Inafew years a race track was established in the vicinity.
Intelligencer, June 1, 1813. ‘‘Ladies can be supplied with syllabub
under the cow every morning until six and every evening until after
seven o'clock,’ was one of the attractions advertised by Mr. Lindo.
Intelligencer, May 24, 1809.
6 United States Law, March 3, 1809.
534 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Georgetown and the contiguous territory of Virginia to the
bridge.
In Maryland the good road movement inspired greater
interest. About the time the general government made its
first and only experiment in road making by beginning the
construction of a turnpike designed to extend west from Cum-
berland, Md., to the Ohio River, the Maryland legislature on
Jan. 25, 1806, incorporated a company to build a turnpike from
the District line where it crossed the Georgetown-Frederick
post road. For Frederick was on the great highway from
Baltimore to the western country, and the section of it from
Baltimore to within twelve miles of Frederick had by the
year 1808 been improved into a turnpike.
As even in Maryland, with its greater population and the aid
of public appropriations, and with Baltimore one of the great
commercial centres of the country, the financing of such enter-
prises was difficult, the problem was still harder in the District,
where congress, its only legislature, gave no help whatever and
the resources were more limited. To remedy this latter defect
the Maryland law of 1806 proposed the bringing together in
this undertaking the interests of citizens of Georgetown, Wash-
ington, Rockville, Frederick and Hagerstown, yet the road
was not built. Six years later the charter was revived by the
Maryland legislature, and then, by a supplementary measure
enacted by congress, the company was authorized to extend
its road into the District through Tenleytown ! to Georgetown.
But again the appeal failed to reach the wide range proposed.
Nearly a decade passed before any further road making was
attempted on the highways leading into the District. The slow
progress in such improvements which in that period through-
out the country had behind it a strong and enthusiastic public
sentiment was attributed at the time to the lack of means, the
opposition of Georgetown and the absolute indifference of the
1 In the Maryland law of Dec. 24, 1812, the name is spelled Tennally
Town, and also in the United States law of Feb. 27,1813. The present
accepted spelling is used in the issue of the City of Washington Gazette
of Sept. 25, 1820.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 535
banks. The latter cause was no doubt emphasized because
of the contrast with current conditions in Maryland. For by
the year 1813 the policy had been adopted there of exacting
as a condition of extending bank charters, liberal subscriptions
to the stock of the turnpike to Cumberland. On the other
hand, the course of congress in granting District bank charters
reflected the prevailing sentiment of the day, which notably
in New York and Pennsylvania led the legislatures to refuse
bonuses from those wishing to organize banks and to grant the
privilege with restrictions intended to prevent the control of
these institutions from falling into the hands of a few.
After the charter of the Bank of the United States expired
in March, 1811, the state legislatures were busy in creating
banks to take its place. Congress did its share, considering
the size of the District. For in the year 1811 five banks were
authorized to do business, and in the following year another
was added to this list. All were not new institutions. The
Bank of Alexandria, whose Virginia charter had expired, and the
Bank of Potomac, a partnership concern, both of Alexandria,
were given charters, while the Farmers Bank and the Mechanics
Bank of Alexandria were entirely new institutions. In George-
town the Bank of Columbia continued under its Maryland
charter, while the Union Bank of the same place, organized as a
partnership in 1809, was granted two years later the privilege
of a bank.
The same course was followed in the case of a similar in-
stitution in Washington, the Bank of Washington, which began
business Dec. 1, 1809, as a partnership, thus providing the
capital city with its first purely local bank, organized by Wash-
ington capital and designed to supply local needs, which the
only other banking institution in the city, a branch of the
Bank of the United States, was not primarily designed to do.”
At first the bank occupied one of the houses of Carroll Row
1 Intelligencer, April 24, 1825.
2 The capital stock of $1,000,000 in shares of $40 each was oversub-
scribed the first day the subscription books were opened. Intelligencer,
Sept. 1 and 6, 1809. But only one half of the par value of the shares
was paid in.
536 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
on the east side of 1st Street, between East Capitol and A streets,
S. E. By the end of the first year the bank had paid a divi-
dend of 6 per cent on the amount of stock paid in and was in its
own building erected on the east side of New Jersey Avenue,
between B and C streets, S. E.1
The following spring the bank had a charter from congress,
and a few weeks later received, together with the Bank of
Alexandria, deposits of public money in place of the late Branch
Bank.?
The Bank of Columbia was apparently used as the medium
for public payments as well as a depository, as a branch was
opened in the treasury office. But the mania for starting
banks, so prevalent at that period throughout the country, was
not satisfied in the District by the six charters granted by
congress, for after all, the net gain in numbers was only two,
and both were located in Alexandria. At once proposals were
made for organizing new banks, for as the author of a news-
paper communication stated the city’s “only little bank of
Capitol Hill has not had funds sufficient for the canals, road
stock, and building houses in the neighborhood of its owner’s
houses. . . . In short, the people are distressed for want of
reasonable bank accommodation, and the commerce of the
Potomac is nearly at a stand.’’* In the meantime the office of
the old branch bank at the northeast corner of 13th and F streets
was offered for sale,° and as the assets of that institution were
more than sufficient to liquidate the stock, besides a record for
good yearly dividends, the appeal for subscriptions to bank
stock with such a precedent was not only to those in need of
working capital but also to the investor. The president of the
Branch Bank, John P. Van Ness, took an active interest in one
1 Deed of Daniel Carroll of Duddington to Bank of Washington,
July 25, 1810, of lots 7 and 8 in subdivision of lot 4, Square 690, for
$1863. Dividend notice, Intelligencer, Oct. 31, 1810.
2 Report of Albert Gallatin. Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., 1st
Sess., Jan. 13, 1812, p. 2056.
3 Intelligencer, March 24, 1812. Also called the office of the Bank of
Columbia, city of Washington. Intelligencer, April 2, 1812.
4 The same, March 24, 1812.
5 The same, May 28, 1812.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 537
of these enterprises which developed into the Bank of the
Metropolis. The stock was nearly twice over subscribed on
the first day the public was given a chance to subscribe! An
association or partnership was formed, with John P. Van Ness
as president. On a similar plan the Farmers and Mechanics
Bank of Georgetown was organized,’ and applications in both
instances were made to congress the following fall for a charter,
the same request having come from the Farmers and Mechanics
Bank and the Union Bank of Alexandria. But no action was
reached by that body until some three years later. But during
that interval the new banks continued to do business as private
banks. In the spring of 1814 the Bank of the Metropolis was
open for business on the second floor of the building at the north-
east corner of 15th and F streets, which was purchased by the
bank and where it remained until the banking room on the first
floor had been fitted up.* During the year 1814 it was proposed
in the discussions in congress to replace the Bank of the United
States by a national bank to be located in Washington. But the
currency condition had not reached the height of the destined
disorder, and two years passed before any action was taken,
and then a new charter was given to the Bank of the United
States and the principal office, as in the case of the first institu-
tion, was placed in Philadelphia. The net result of these efforts
to enlarge the banking facilities of the District was that by 1814
the number of banks both chartered and private had increased
from seven in 1809 to ten. Of this latter number, six were
located in Alexandria, two in Georgetown and two in Washing-
ton. A third was added to the latter number in the following
year, when the Patriotic Bank, Robert Brent, president, was
organized.’ Beyond an amendment offered in the house to the
1 Intelligencer, Jan. 4, 1814.
2 Same, Jan. 14, 1814.
3 Same, April 12, 1814. The force employed is given in a notice in
the issue of March 19, 1814, when it is stated the board of directors
‘‘will elect a teller, a bookkeeper, discount clerk who will do the duty
also of runner for the present, so far as to prepere the notices for notes
falling due, and a porter who will also serve the notices.”
‘The same, April 25 and June 25, 1815. According to a report of the
538 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
bill incorporating the Bank of Alexandria proposing a tax of
1 per cent on the capital stock to be paid to the corporation of
Alexandria for the support of free schools, and which was de-
feated by a vote of four to one, nothing was done in congress
to raise from this source money for local public purposes.
The wonderful change in transportation methods wrought
by steam had its beginnings in the application of that power to
vessels. Some six years after the successful trip of the Cler-
mont, the steamboat made its appearance on the Potomac. In
the year 1813 there were no steamboats south of Philadelphia,
except “a clumsy, flat-bottomed steamboat called the Colwm-
bian, had been used on the Potomac to carry grain and wood to
Washington.” ! In the fall of 1812, B. H. Latrobe, who had
just completed his first term of service as architect of the public
buildings, sought to interest Washington citizens in the forma-
tion of a company to operate a steamboat between Georgetown
and Alexandria.”
This plan was soon changed for the more ambitious one of a
route between Washington and Acquia Creek, forty miles down
the river. It was decided to form a Virginia corporation. At
a meeting held in Alexandria it was voted to make an applica-
tion to the Virginia legislature for a charter. Early in 1813
the Potomac Steamboat Co. was organized, and by June its
secretary of the treasury to the house, Feb. 22, 1814, the capital ac-
tually paid in of the chartered banks of the District was as follows :—
Bank of Washington ..... . . $546,665
Bank of ‘Columbia? = 127" 2 2 ee 8591560
Union Bank of Georgetown . . . . . 405,170
Bank of Alexandria. <2 <# 05 ta. 2) este 1480;000
Bank OL sPOtomace (uae) tle ek fe oes es er OOD
Farmers Bank of Alexandria . . . . 510,000
Mechanics Bank of Alexandria. . . . 270,460
1 McMaster, Vol. 4, p. 401.
2 Intelligencer, Nov. 3, 1813. Mr. Latrobe signed the call for the
meeting as agent for Messrs. Livingston and Fulton, the owners of the
patent, and who at that time held the monopoly.
3 Potomac Creek, four miles south of Acquia Creek, was first proposed
as being nearer Fredericksburg, as the design was to make a connection
with the southern line of stages that passed through that town. Jntelli-
gencer, Dec. 15, 1812.
EARLY EFFORTS TO PROMOTE BUSINESS 539
boat, the Washington, was launched at the ship yard in New
York.! But two years passed before the boat was brought to
the Potomac. By its trip from New York the first demonstra-
tion was given of the ability of steam to cope with the might
of the ocean. But the Washington, as the first vessel of that
description having “tried the sea,” * not only brought assur-
ance to doubting minds as to its seaworthiness, but was
the wonder of the day as an annihilator of space in having
made the trip in fifty hours. The first week in June the Wash-
ington began daily trips to Acquia Creek, touching at George-
town, the bridge at Washington and at Alexandria.* In a
few days the schedule was changed to a trip every other day,
so as to suit apparently the stage time-table. The passengers
then left Washington in the afternoon, and the return trip was
made so the boat reached the capital city early the next morn-
ing, where stages met it at the bridge and conveyed passengers
to McKeowin’s Hotel, as the Indian Queen Hotel was at that
time named, where the stages for Baltimore stopped.
1 Tntelligencer, June 16, 1813.
2 The same, May 29, 1815.
3 The same, June 6 and 8 and 26, 1815. The boat left Washington
at 4 a.M., arriving at Acquia Creek at 12 M., or half the time of the stage
route. The fare for each passenger was $5, including one meal.
CHAPTER XX
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF
Tue cost of the care of the poor next to the amounts spent
on the streets was the largest item in the early years in the
annual city budget.!. As far as can be judged from the more
meagre records of Alexandria and the levy court of Washington
County, neither was obliged to provide for such a large number
of dependents as Washington.” While the general condition
of the larger population of Washington was not as prosperous
as that of the other two towns, especially Alexandria, owing
mainly perhaps to the smaller volume of business, yet un-
doubtedly the burden of the poor was increased in the capital
city, because it was the national centre. For then as now
people came to Washington with hopes of collecting claims
against the government, of getting a pension or perhaps an
office, and then there was a class who had no very definite object.
Delays, disappointments and failure were the fate of many,
and so with resources exhausted they were thrown into the
1 City finance reports. Intelligencer, May 29, 1805, June 2, 1806,
May 29, 1807.
2The Alexandria corporation authorized the establishment of a
poorhouse and a workhouse combined, by ordinance of Feb. 5, 1800,
and five years later erected a new building which stood on a tract of
ten acres near the then bounds of the town. As the function imposed
by the old Maryland County laws on the levy court to care for the
poor was continued in operation in the County of Washington except
within the corporate limits of the city of Washington, the corporation
of Georgetown made no provision for this class until after the enact-
ment by congress of the law of May 20, 1826, which deprived the court
of the power to lay a tax in Georgetown and also relieved it of the care
of the Georgetown poor. By an ordinance of Nov. 3, 1810, pro-
vision was made by the Georgetown corporation for renting a house for
keeping in custody and setting to work vagrants; in other words, a
workhouse.
540
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 541
-
debtors’ prison or became dependent. The city government
had hardly been in existence four years when, in the course of a
report to the common council, it was stated “we cannot com-
fortably or economically provide for our own numerous poor or
furnish the alternative of work or expulsion from our streets to
the straggling vagabond beggars, which the seat of government
draws together, and who are as much a pest to the members
of the national legislature as a nuisance to the resident inhabit-
ants.” ! As early as 1807 it was estimated that “there are
annually four or five hundred persons whom their affairs bring
to the seat of government during the sittings of the national
legislature . . . besides these idle and dissolute persons.”’?
An appropriation for the relief of the poor was made by the first
city council and was continued each year, but with such a rapid
rate of increase that in the course of four years the decision was
reached to build a poorhouse, not only where the poor and in-
firm could be cared for, but also where employment could be
given to those able to work, and in this way they could contrib-
ute to their support.’ Prior to this time the contract system
had been in operation, the city paying for the board and lodging
of dependents as well as for the services of a contract physician
and, in case of death, paying for the burial. But in the event
arrangements could not be made in this way for their main-
tenance, then they were sent to the poorhouse, which was
maintained by the levy court for the County of Washington
except the portion within the limits of Washington, in the
frame building erected on Judiciary Square by the city com-
missioners as a hospital for laborers and purchased by the levy
court in 1801.4 A year before a decision was reached to buy
ground and erect a poorhouse, the city council directed a
memorial to be prepared, asking congress to grant a lease, not
1 Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 1, Aug. 25, 1806.
2 Latrobe’s report. American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1,
p. 483.
3 City Ordinance, Oct. 31, 1806.
4The same, Oct. 28, 1802. The use of this building as a county
poorhouse was continued for a number of years. Notice of its being
for sale. Intelligencer, June 6, 1815.
542 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
a gift, of public lots or ground for this purpose.’ This request
was not granted. Some four years later the corporation bought
an entire square, where a poorhouse was erected.? So great
was the need in the winter of 1804-1805, in spite of current
appropriations for poor relief, more than double what had been
provided in any previous year, that a public meeting wascalled
of citizens living in the most populous part of the city, namely,
west of the capitol, to devise means of meeting the pressing
emergency. A committee was authorized to canvass the city
and solicit money.’ In addition to money distributed by the
committee to those applying for relief the public was informed
that clothing could be used. This method of supplementing the
funds for corporate poor relief was continued from time to time,
through the years down to such a recent period as the organiza-
tion of the Associated Charities. At intervals organizations
were formed that sought by public appeal and by entertain-
ments to secure the means to supply the demands which knocked
at every door.°
What was apparently the initial performance of one of these
organizations — the Washington Thespian Benevolent Society
— displayed more zeal on the part of the performers to do a
1 Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 1, Oct. 23, 1805.
2Square No. 448, bounded by M, N, 6th and 7th streets, N. W.
City Ordinance, May 23, 1809.
3 Intelligencer, Jan. 21 and 23, 1805. In the issue of February 22,
the report of the committee shows receipts of $445, of which sum $93
was contributed by members of the senate, $92 by members of the
house and $260 by citizens. A further report in the issue of March
22 gives the total expenditures as $531.98.
4Same, Jan. 25, 1805.
5 The earliest organization to raise money for charity was the
Washington Humane Society, composed entirely of young men with
directors representing the several wards. Joseph Gales, Jr., one of the
proprietors of the Intelligencer, was the president. Intelligencer, Nov.
20 and 29,1810. Two years later the Washington Benevolent Society
was formed, with Judge Cranch, president. Intelligencer, Feb. 4, 1812.
Notice of an exhibition, presumably theatrical, for the benefit of the
poor under the auspices of this society, Jan. 25, 1815. <A theatrical
society called the Thespian furnished the entertainment the following
winter, and it was stated ‘‘that a similar association last year gave to
the poor upwards of $1000.”’ Oct. 13, 1815.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 543
charitable act than ability in the histrionic art, for in a news-
paper communication commenting on the production, the writer
suggested that more attention be paid to stage business, “for,”’
he adds, “however our feelings may be wrought up in the
contemplation of a fellow-creature in the act of committing
suicide, much of the trembling interest with which we view
this wretched being is destroyed by the knowledge that he is
altogether unprovided with any weapon to accomplish his self-
destruction.” 1 In addition to other forms of appeal, charity
sermons were delivered in the churches.” Finally, in the winter
of 1815-1816, amore permanent use of a portion of the money
thus obtained from the charitable was proposed when it was
announced that a part of the proceeds of a theatrical entertain-
ment for charity would be given to the Washington City Or-
phan Asylum, then being organized.* The Female Benevolent
Society of Georgetown aimed to improve the condition of the
poor as well as to relieve their current necessities. Women
were given spinning and weaving to do, and wheels and reels
and cards were lent out by the society, which was also an
agency for the sale of the manufactured articles. Clothing
was supplied girls so that they could attend school, while pro-
visions and clothing were given to those unable to help them-
selves. Still more distinctive, because unusual in the average
city of that day, of another phase of Washington as a national
1 Intelligencer, Jan. 3, 1816.
2 Notice of a charity sermon to be delivered in the Methodist Church,
Georgetown. Intelligencer, Feb. 15, 1812. Aiso in a previous issue
such a sermon was announced to be given at St. Patrick’s Catholic
Church.
3 Intelligencer, Oct. 13, 1815. Notice of a meeting of ladies in the
hall of the house at the capitol for the purpose of joining an associa-
tion to provide an asylum for destitute orphans. Same, Oct. 3 and
Nov. 27, 1815. Mrs. James Madison served as first directress for two
years and was followed by Mrs. John P. Van Ness. Historical Sketch,
55th Cong., Ist Sess., Sen. 185, July 21, 1897.
4 Federal Republican, Jan. 11, 1813. Annual report of board of
directors. Mrs. T. Peter, directress; Mrs. Mason, treasurer; Mrs.
Heugh, secretary; managers, Mrs. Addison, Mrs. Woodside, Mrs.
Bussard, Mrs. Lingan, Mrs. English, Miss Dick, Miss Worthington,
Miss E. Peter.
544 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
centre was the early proyision for the care and maintenance
of lunatics Apparently this service was done by contract,
and that method was continued for a number of years.
As the city made use of the poorhouse of the county, so early
a similar plan was adopted to supply the lack of a city jail or
lockup by paying the expense of keeping at the levy court jail
persons committed by the magistrates.? There is no further
reference to the subject and no indication as to how long the
arrangement was continued, if finally made. It may be con-
cluded the county did not maintain a jail very long in the city,
for five years later the Georgetown corporation gave permission
to the levy court to use the jail of that town,® while within two
years from that time congress granted permission to have com-
mitted to the circuit court jail all police cases coming within the
jurisdiction of justices of the peace. The circuit court jail or
jail of Washington County was built in the year 1802, with
money appropriated by congress and expended under the direc-
tion of the United States marshal of the District.
As the result of the expenditure of $11,702 in 1802 and 1803,
a building was erected of brick in Judiciary Square about mid-
way on the north side of the line of E Street, two stories high,
one hundred feet long and twenty-one feet wide.®
Through the centre of the interior on both floors from end to
end ran a passageway, on each side of which were eight cells,
each eight feet square.’ At the same time no provision was
made for erecting a jail for Alexandria County, although
the structure in Alexandria leased for that purpose was described
some seven years later as not fit to house swine, and in addition
1 The first provision of the sort was made by the city ordinance of
Nov. 26. 1806.
2 Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 1, Nov. 2, 1805.
3 Georgetown Ordinance, Nov. 3, 1810.
‘Act to further amend the charter of the city of Washington,
May 4, 1812.
’ American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 1, p. 338. Report of the
marshal, Daniel C. Brent, and also of George Hadfield, architect of
the building. 6 Warden, p. 36.
7 Register of Debates. 19th Cong., Ist Sess., March 1, 1826,
p. 1475.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 545
-
was insecure.' No attention was paid by congress to appeals
for a better building, and in fact it was not until some six or
eight years later that any action was taken by the national legis-
lature, and then, instead of treating the two counties alike,
congress merely conferred on the levy court of Alexandria
County authority to impose a tax to defray the cost of erecting a
jail and a court house.? It is not surprising, as the editor of
the Alexandria Daily Gazette stated,’ that the people felt that
congress either could not or would not attend to their needs,
and as there was no other legislative source from which relief
could come, the conclusion was reached that a territorial
form of government providing a legislature that would be more
sensitive to the wants of the people would correct what was
looked upon as a vital defect in the system of government.‘
At any rate, the discrimination against the Virginia portion of
the District displayed in this connection, with other causes of
dissatisfaction with congressional government soon provided
a fruitful soil for the seeds of discontent which came to a fruitage
in the retrocession of the entire section in 1846.
As illustrating another phase in the relations of congress and
the District, a couple of years prior to this complaint of the
Alexandria editor, the house had added to the list of standing
committees one on the District of Columbia. At its head was
placed Philip Barton Key, representing the district comprising
Montgomery and Frederick counties, Md., who was the only
member of either branch of congress then, and for a number
of years later, who owned the house he occupied in the District.®
1 Alexandria Daily Gazette, reprinted in the Jntelligencer, Nov. 24, 1810.
2 United States Laws, April 27, 1816, and April 3, 1818.
3 Nov. 24, 1810.
4As to the remedy, the editor apparently stood alone, for in the
following January, a resolution offered in the house to instruct a
committee to inquire into the expediency of establishing a government
failed of action, and it was then stated by Mr. Lewis of Virginia that
he had heard of no application from any part of the District for such
achange. Annals of Congress, 11th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 626, Jan. 18,
1811.
5 Annals of Congress, 10th Cong., Ist Sess., Jan. 21, 1808, pp. 1486
and 1512.
voL.I—2N
546 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
But hardly a year elapsed before the house was informed that
there was no room in the new south wing “sufficiently spacious
for the increasing business,” of the committee. As a tem-
porary expedient the sittings of the committee were held in
the room fitted up for the use of the president when he came to
the capitol.!. Up to the year 1812 commitments to the new
jail of Washington County were restricted to those sentenced
by the circuit court. The jurisdiction of the court was broad,
but it did not invade the province of the justices of the peace or
magistrates as constituted under the Maryland law. The magis-
strates were the police court judges of the day, but in addition
to giving judgment in cases of disorder or vagrancy or violations
of city ordinances, they had also cognizance in personal demands
or small debts to the value of $20. When the political area of
the city was carved out of Washington County by the law of
1802, the separation between the newly created municipality
and that of the county was only partial. The levy court of
Washington County still retained its function of levying taxes
within the city as it did in Georgetown, and for two years after
the incorporation of the city, the tax collector of the county,
who had also been made the tax collector of the city, performed
his dual function and assessed the real and personal property
in the city and collected the taxes both for the municipality
and the county.? Congress in 1804 made an exception in the
case of Washington by putting an end to the power of the levy
court to levy any tax on the inhabitants of the city* but some
eight years later substituted a species of indirect tax, by direct-
ing that the city should pay one half of the general county
1 Message from the president of the United States, transmitting a
report of the surveyor of the public buildings. Dec. 21, 1809.
2 Intelligencer, Aug. 17, 1804. List of property advertised by Wash-
ington Boyd, collector of the county tax for the county of Washington,
including pieces in the city.
3 Congress was promptly informed by the county authorities that
the loss of the contribution of the city towards county expenses was
a great inconvenience. (Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 1st Sess.,
p. 536, 1805-1806.) But at the same session (p. 532) the protest
took another form in a petition from the inhabitants of the county
asking that that section of the District be receded to Maryland.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 547
expenses except for roads and bridges. The law also provided
for the representation of the various parts of the county, ex-
pressly excluding Washington city, by directing that the presi-
dent should appoint seven justices, three residents of George-
town, two living east of Rock Creek and two west of that
stream.
Not until the passage of the law of May 20, 1826, were the
relations of Georgetown to the levy court made the same as
those of Washington. Up to that time Georgetown lay within
the taxing area of the court.
It was at the same session that congress conferred on the
city government specific police power in place of the more
general authority of previous laws to preserve the peace and
quiet of the city.?. In addition the marshal of the District was
directed to receive into the jail all persons committed by justices
of the peace, as vagrants and for disorder, etc. The expense
of maintaining the prisoners, the marshal was instructed, was
to be defrayed by the city authorities. It was further pro-
vided that the use of the jail should continue until other arrange-
ments be made by the corporation. The elaborateness of the
law relative to suppressing vagrancy and disorder in the city
finds its explanation in part no doubt in the growing population
figures. Washington had emerged from its earlier village con-
ditions, as the result of an average yearly growth since 1800
of about 500 souls, a ratio of increase that did not change
much until after 1840. But this legislation also marks the
beginning, not only in Washington but in the other two towns,
of a period of stringent local ordinances designed to control
as well as to restrict the growing class of free negroes which
was regarded as a menace to the peace and security of slave-
1United States Law, July 1, 1812. A similar provision was in-
serted in the city charter of May 15, 1820, but was more specific in
character, as the city was then required to pay “‘one-half of the expenses
ineurred on account of the orphan’s court, the office of coroner, the
jail of said county”’ and for roads east of Rock Creek leading directly
to the city. See also Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 4, March 15, 1817.
2 An act further to amend the charter of the city of Washington,
May 4, 1812.
548 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
holding communities. In the earlier years, when the city was
smaller and the black terror not so real, peace officers were not
provided, and it may be presumed were not needed. It is true
that as early as 1803, the office of superintendent of police was
created and two years later the title was changed to high con-
stable and still later this office was superseded by a board of
commissioners.2. The function of the office, however, was to
look after the health of the city where “bilious affections pre-
vailed in autumnal months” and where alarm had recently
been caused by the ravages of yellow fever in Alexandria.* The
duties of the police officers, as they were termed, were to inspect
the city and see that stagnant water and other nuisances were
abated. In the later stage of the evolution, the board of com-
missioners had general charge of the execution of the laws, the
supervision of improvements and of the constables. While, of
course, such officers had the responsibility of maintaining the
peace of the city, yet that was not the primary function.
It was not until some six years after the incorporation of the
city that the duty was made more distinctive, to preserve the
peace and good order of the city and especially to enforce the
law forbidding slaves or free colored to be abroad after ten
o’clock at night. Two police officers were appointed, one in
each of the two sections of the city east and west of 4th Street W.,
who served during the day. There was no provision for a
night watch.°
1In Washington alone the percentage of free colored to the whites
had risen from 4 per cent in 1800 to 14 per cent ten years later. The
proportion of slaves to whites for the same period showed a slight
decrease. In Maryland from 1810 ‘‘the progress of emancipation was
astonishing. The state became crowded with a free black popula-
tion.’”’” Speech of Clement Dorsey, of Maryland, in the house. Regis-
ter of Debates. 19th Cong., 2d Sess., Dec. 27, 1826, p. 560.
2 City Ordinances, Sept. 20, 1803, May 2, 1805, and May 30, 1807.
3 Intelligencer, May 28, 1804. The city council appropriated $300
for the relief of such citizens of Alexandria as sought refuge in Wash-
ington.
4 City Ordinance, Dec. 6, 1808.
5In Alexandria a night watch was established as early as 1800
(Ordinances of Feb. 5, 1800, and March 30,1801). The watchmen were
required to cry the time at the beginning of each hour. In each dis-
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 549
-
In the course of three years another change was made. The
title police was dropped and the old term constable revived! It
is evident the right to use the circuit court jail, provided the
city paid the charges, conferred on the magistrates, was not made
use of, or at least to the full extent. For more than a year
afterwards, the complaint was publicly made that magistrates
set free disorderly persons, vagrants and more especially free
negroes, it being alleged there was no place to send them.
As has already been pointed out a place had been provided, but
apparently the cost stood in the way.
The writer of the newspaper communication referred to
severely arraigned the city fathers for their neglect of the in-
terests of the community in the treatment of petty offenders.
The previous council had awakened to some phases of the situa-
tion, as an appropriation was made for the erection of a watch
house in each ward, the first provision of the sort made by the
city government.’ But this was not enough. The problem of
dealing with vagrants and disorderly persons at that period
was apparently trifling as compared with the more serious ques-
tions arising from the increase in the number of free negroes.
At the following session an act was passed dealing specifically
with this subject, but the penalties were limited to fines or
imprisonment.*
The old method of arresting, and then turning loose again on
the streets, vagrants and disorderly persons was to be given up.
A workhouse was established.® A modest beginning was made.
A house located at Greenleaf’s Point was rented and there
negroes, free mulattoes and vagrants were set to work making
trict was a watch box with a lantern attached. There was no provi-
sion for a night watch in Georgetown until 1811, when a captain and
seven officers were appointed. At this time an appropriation was
made for the erection of watch houses in that town.
1City Ordinance, May 31, 1811.
2 Intelligencer, Sept. 4, 1813.
3 City Ordinance, March 30, 1813.
4The same, Dec. 16, 1812. Ordinances similar in purpose were
passed about this period by the councils of the other two towns.
5 City Ordinance, Nov. 15, 1813. Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 4, Feb.
12, 1814. Intelligencer, Jan. 10, 1814.
550 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
such goods as could be sold, thus reducing the cost to the city of
their support.!| In the course of a couple of years the work-
house as a separate institution was abandoned and it was com-
bined with the poorhouse, a union which was continued up to a
few years ago.2. The purpose, however, at the time was to keep
the workhouse apart from the poorhouse, as the year following
its establishment a resolution was passed by the council and
approved by the president of the United States, authorizing a
lottery to provide a building fund for a workhouse or peniten-
tiary. But while a series of lotteries was held, the city realized
nothing for such a purpose.? In the year 1812 the council,
availing itself of the clause in the city charter, granted that year
to hold lotteries for effecting objects of public improvement,
secured the approval of the president of the United States for a
lottery to build two Lancaster schoolhouses. As there was no
limit to the number of lotteries, except the provision that not
more than $10,000 could be raised in one year, the city council
the next year provided in the same fashion for a workhouse, and
at the next session a similar provision was made for a city
hall. For five years following, the council annually passed a
lottery resolution, so that altogether there were eight, which
were expected to net the city $80,000. But the enterprises
dragged from the outset. Five years passed after the first
lottery ordinance before a drawing was held.* Eventually, a
school fund was the only one secured, while the city was plunged
heavily in debt to pay the prizes for which the absconding
manager left no money. A few months before the circuit court
1 An instance of the odd blending of two separate governing bodies,
such as the city council of Washington and the levy court of the county,
is to be found in the law of congress of July 1, 1812, conferring certain
powers on the latter, which authorized the court to establish and main-
tain a penitentiary, as a workhouse was often termed at that period
‘in such place as the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city
of Washington shall designate.” It is not known that this provision
was carried out.
2 City Ordinance, April 6, 1815.
3 City Council Resolution, Aug. 3, 1814.
4 Intelligencer, Noy. 28, 1818. Report on lotteries in the Dis-
trict, American State Papers, Miscella., Vol. 2, p. 634.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF Doe
jail was ready for service, occurred the first punishment for a
capital crime that had been imposed within the District. James
McGurk, who had been found guilty of the murder of his wife,
had been sentenced to be executed on the 28th of August, 1802,
but had been reprieved for a couple of months by the president
of the United States through the efforts of his counsel, A. B.
Woodward.' At the end of that period he was taken from the
C Street jail to a gallows which, according to tradition, was
erected on the mall at Maryland Avenue and Ist Street, N. W.,
where he was hung.2. The body was buried in Holmead Ceme-
tery and near that of the daughter of a poor but respectable
widow. This action on the part of those interested in McGurk
was resented by the mother of the girl, and some of her friends
removed the body of the homicide to the Slashes. When this
became known, the body was recovered and placed in the original
grave. It was not, however, allowed to remain there and was
again disinterred and taken back to the Slashes, which proved
to be the final resting place.* The account of the execution
of McGurk in the Intelligencer the day following that event was
as follows: “ Yesterday was executed James McGurk, sentenced
to death for murdering his wife,”’ which illustrates the change
in methods of treating news matter by the public press. In
this instance, as with other items of local happenings, the details
were no doubt known to all members of that small community,
so that in reality they did not constitute news. This was the
view expressed by the editor of the Intelligencer in the course
of an explanation for not printing communications detailing the
personal merits of candidates for the office of mayor when he
wrote, “We all know each other in the city and the topic is one
very uninteresting to those who do not belong to it.” * Equal
brevity was used eleven years later in reporting the next oc-
currence of the kind.’ In commenting on the rarity of execu-
1 Intelligencer, Aug. 30 and Sept. 6, 1802.
2C. C. Reports, Cranch, Vol. 1, p. 71. Intelligencer, Oct. 29, 1802.
3 Reminiscences of George Watterston. Intelligencer, Nov. 29, 1845.
4 June 2, 1815.
5 At that time a negro slave named Patrick, convicted of an attempt
to commit rape, was hung on a gallows erected near the jail. /ntelli-
552 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
tions in the District apropos of the 1813 murder case, the editor
of the Intelligencer attributed it to the leniency in the execution
of the law and the frequency of pardons so “as to rob the law
of half its terrors.” There is no indication of leniency in the
enforcement of the laws allowing imprisonment for debt.
For as small an amount as one dollar, the unfortunate
debtor could be shut up in jail for fifty or sixty days.1. The
state of public opinion in this particular may no doubt be
accurately gauged and the early stage in the movement, which
finally wiped from the statute books of the states what came
to be regarded as barbarous legislation, may be traced in its
labored course in the law enacted at the second session of con-
gress in the new city. Then the rigors of the Maryland laws,
adopted as they had been in bulk, were mitigated, when imprison-
ment for debts less than $20 was forbidden. Five years, however,
had hardly passed when the law was repealed.? There was no
place but the prison, in the estimate of that age, for the penni-
less debtor, but for the debtor with property the doors were
flung open, provided he would give up what he had for the
benefit of his creditors. The process for the insolvent debtor
in Maryland was to appeal to the legislature and secure an
enabling act to enjoy the benefits of the insolvency laws. But
as there was no such authority in the District to appeal to except
congress, that body passed an insolvent debtor’s law at the
third session in the city which clothed the circuit court with the
authority exercised in such cases by the Maryland legislature.
The procedure was then similar to that in Maryland, and con-
gress attempted no higher level.
The action of congress in going back to the former harshness
of the law and making imprisonment for small debts legal in the
District was no doubt a response, in part at least, to a protest
of the grand jury of Washington County, which characterized
gencer, March 13, 1813. Cranch, C. C., Vol. 2, p.60. Five years passed
before a capital sentence was again imposed in the District (Cranch,
C. C., Vol. 2, p. 158), but there is no record that the sentence was
executed.
1 [ntelligencer, Jan. 2, 1818.
2 Stats., Vol. 2, p. 422, Feb. 24, 1807.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF Soe
-
“the law prohibiting imprisonment for debts less than $20 as
in favor of the idle and vagabond, to encourage dishonesty and
to shake the confidence of citizens.” ! It is quite evident this
view of the justice of such laws was generally held throughout
the District, for two years previously a convention composed
of delegates representing the three towns and the two counties
refused to adopt a resolution favoring the repeal of the law.2
This condition of the laws in the District continued unchanged
for many years.
Some time in the year 1802 the coils of debt had so tightened
about Samuel Blodgett, that picturesque figure in the group
of early city speculators, that he was unable with all his in-
genuity to extricate himself. He was thrown into prison.
Owing to the kindly offices of his friend, Dr. William Thornton,
who became responsible for his respecting the prison bounds
by giving a bond of $10,000, he was able to enjoy as the act of
congress in providing the bounds specified “the liberty to walk
therein, out of the prison, for the preservation of his health.”
But he extended his walk beyond the limits and failed to return,
and Dr. Thornton, whose versatility did not successfully include
money matters, managed in some way to make good his surety.®
But this proved to be only an incident in the varied career of
Mr. Blodgett. He soon reappeared again in Washington and
busied himself in soliciting funds for the national university
and later on he started a popular subscription for a monument
to General Washington.t' It was even said that while still in
1 Intelligencer, Feb. 18, 1807.
2 Proceedings of delegates representing various sections of the
District, n. p. n. d. (1805).
3 Statement of Dr. William Thornton, dated April 10, 1824. Force
Papers, Library of Congress. Also records of the circuit court, De-
cember term, 1803, for proceedings to recover under the bond. It
appears from the court record that John Stinckney, a nephew of Blod-
gett joined with Dr. Thornton as surety, but there is no mention in
Dr. Thornton’s statement of Mr. Stinckney sharing in this liability.
4In the winter of 1805-1806 he presented a memorial to congress
stating that subscriptions for the university have been received equal
to $30,000 from 18,000 subscribers, and requesting that a site be desig-
nated and such other aid given as may be deemed proper. Annals of
Congress, 9th Cong., Ist Sess., p. 301.
554 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the prison bounds he continued his solicitation of five-dollar
subscriptions for the university! As the years went on,
inquiry began to be made as to the progress by Mr.
Blodgett, and communications in the Intelligencer called for a
statement.2. Through the same medium he was asked for
a report in regard to the fund raised for the monument to
Washington.? While as far as known no report was made by
Mr. Blodgett at the time, yet some years after his death, it was
stated the university fund collected by him amounted to $7000,
which at that time had nearly doubled by the accumulation of
interest. There is no record left of this fund or indeed of the
other Blodgett fund for the Washington monument, the where-
abouts of which, years later, was the subject of inquiry by a
correspondent in the Intelligencer who declared it had been de-
posited in the Bank of the United States.® In the midst of the
vicissitudes of his closing years, as no doubt they were, even to a
man of his sanguine temperament, Mr. Blodgett published his
second work on political economy, which, however, was not
strictly confined to that subject, but included personal remi-
niscences and more especially his connection with the national
university enterprise.6 He died in the year 1814 in a hospital
in Baltimore and so completely had he dropped out of current in-
terests that no notice appeared in the Washington press of his
death.’ Although Mr. Blodgett was dead, his widow was not,
as the holders of the large property interests which were sold
to make good the first prize in the unfortunate hotel lottery
‘ Journal of Latrobe, p. 132. Latrobe gives what is no doubt one
of the current estimates of Blodgett, when he speaks of him as ‘‘one
of the adventurers and swindlers whom the establishment of the
city brought hither.”
2 Intelligencer, May 9 and July 13, 1811.
3 The same, Jan. 14, 1812.
4The same, March 31, 1819. The author of this communication
proposed that the ‘‘Brick Capitol,” then recently vacated by con-
gress, be used as ‘‘a seminary which will be the foundation of the
national university.’’ March 31, 1819.
5 The same, Oct. 8, 1833.
6 Keonomica. 1806.
7 Dr. Thornton’s statement, Force Papers. Cranch, C. C., 3, p.
394. Death of Samuel Blodgett in 1814 admitted.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF OOD
soon discovered. For Mr. Blodgett had failed to join his wife
in the deed by which he vested in trustees all his property
to secure the first lottery prize. Hardly a year elapsed after
his death, when a notice appeared signed by Elias B. Caldwell,
attorney for Mrs. Blodgett, informing the owners of the Blodgett
property that all of it was liable to the claim of dower.! It is
pleasant to turn from these aspects of Mr. Blodgett’s career and
get a glimpse of him from another point of view. When a
young man, Joseph H. Bradley, a prominent member of the Dis-
trict bar, was a companion of Mr. Blodgett on some of his
hunting trips. He was “a capital shot,’’ Mr. Bradley states,
“keeping the best dogs I have ever seen, a keen sportsman and
sketching with great skill. There is in my father’s family a
lifelike sketch made by him of his two dogs in the act of point-
ing. . . . He shot the birds in what was then marshy ground
between 11th and 14th and K and H streets.” ? Of quite a dif-
ferent type was Benjamin Stoddert, who died a short time before
Mr. Blodgett closed his varied career. Both men had ventured
largely in Washington city property and both had wrecked their
fortunes. Mr. Stoddert, who had a respectable career as a pub-
lic man and in business, ended it deeply in debt.2 Five years
previously General Uriah Forrest, whose gallant record in the
revolutionary war had been followed by large business opera-
tions in Georgetown and who was one of General Washington’s
close advisers in his negotiations to secure the site of the city,
had passed away. He had served as the first clerk of the cir-
cuit court for four years and was then succeeded by William
Brent, who held the office for thirty-eight years.t| He was one
of the original proprietors of land within the city, but when he
died in 1809 his estate was in the hands of assignees.’ It is by
1 [ntelligencer, Feb. 6, 1815. The United States having bought the
hotel property for the use of the post office department settled Mrs.
Blodgett’s claim by paying her yearly $333.33 for her natural life.
United States Law, May 19, 1828.
2 The same, Dec. 15, 1852.
3 Tho same, Jan. 1, 1814.
4The same, July 17, 1805.
5 The same, May 1, 1809.
556 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
no means clear that the financial failures in these three lives
are entirely attributable to their losses as owners of Washington
city property, for while there was a great shrinkage in property
values in the city, yet all owners were not ruined. Instances
of the more fortunate class are to be found in the estate of David
Burnes, represented by General John P. Van Ness, the estate
of Notley Young, represented by Robert Brent and also in the
estate of Daniel Carroll of Duddington, who at this time was one
of the moneyed men of the place, although in later years he
met reverses. Then he was president of the Washington
Bridge Co., of the Columbian Turnpikes Co. and of the Bank
of Washington.
It was not until later years that Thomas Law felt the pinch
of narrower circumstances, although his friend William M.
Duncanson had lost practically all the money he invested in
the city. James Greenleaf was reduced to moderate circum-
stances but managed to get an income from his claims on the
property of the famous but disastrous syndicate of Morris,
Nicholson and Greenleaf. His brother-in-law, William Cranch,
at the beginning the Washington agent of the syndicate, lived
a long, honored and useful life as chief justice of the circuit
court.
The lack of compactness in the location of the buildings of
the city was not without an advantage, for no doubt it was
mainly due to this condition that so few fires occurred during
the early years. It seems remarkable in a place where wooden
construction was largely the rule, but it is recorded that during
one period of ten years ending in 1816 there had not been a
single loss of property from such a cause.!
In the year 1802, when the city government was established,
there was but one fire engine in the city and that belonged to
the government and was used in extinguishing the flames that
were discovered in the treasury office in January, 1801. At
the very first session of the city council provision was made for
fire protection which was ample enough, but like some other
projects of the city fathers in the early days was beyond the
1 [ntelligencer, Dec. 9, 1816.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 557
resources of the city government. The clause of the law that
was not practicable gave instructions to the mayor to buy a
fire engine to be kept near the Centre Market and also to get
two additional engines to be located near the west and east
markets.
In the other sections requiring citizens to provide at their own
expense leather buckets to be kept in their houses or stores, one
bucket for each story, ready for use should the occasion arise,
the council followed the example of Alexandria, but did not
attempt to appeal to the reason of their constituents as the city
authorities on the west side of the Potomac did in the quaintly
worded preamble to the ordinance of Feb. 5, 1800, requiring
citizens to provide fire buckets. For it was stated that
“whereas it is the duty and interest of the inhabitants to guard
against the destructive ravages of fire and it is reasonable that
the expenses incurred should be borne by those whose property
is protected, etc.” In Georgetown, the same year, the Washing-
ton ordinance was passed, the town authorities assumed charge
of the engine that had been bought by subscriptions of citizens,
and two years later fell in line with the other two towns by
requiring property owners to provide fire buckets.
The second council of Washington evidently recognized the
futility of the ordinance for the purchase of engines, but with
the view of having this done at private expense divided the city
into four fire wards which were not identical with the city wards,
and authorized citizens to organize a fire company in each ward.
The plan seemed to appeal to the public, for in a few weeks
companies were organized in all the wards.!. The names of fire
directors, one for each ward, appeared in the list of city officials
for the year 1803-1804 and several years following, showing
that this part of the ordinance was carried out. In addition the
board of general superintendence or fire commissioners, com-
posed of the directors and representatives from each company,
was called together for purposes of organization.? It was evi-
dently early realized that the city corporation was unable to
1 [ntelligencer, Aug. 17 and 22, Sept. 21 and Dee. 19, 1804.
2 The same, June 4, 1806.
558 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
provide a fire protection system as contemplated, as in fact it
did not do until a decade later, and so a memorial was sent to
congress asking that fire companies be established, and fire
engines, houses and ladders be provided at public expense for
the mutual protection of the property of the United States and
citizens. Congress made no direct response to this appeal.
But the engine belonging to the government, with the building
near the treasury office, was turned over to the Union Fire Co.?
It is probable this is the engine referred to in the Intelligencer of
June 27, 1810, as the only one in the city that could be brought
into service. A year before, however, a committee of the
Columbian Fire Engine Co., later on Columbia, had been
appointed to make a contract for the purchase of a fire engine.’
At that time it was stated the company had raised nearly enough
to meet the cost, and two years later the balance was appro-
priated from the city funds, the first municipal expenditure for
fire protection. The headquarters of the company were in
the vicinity of the capitol building. It thus appears that by
the year 1811 there were two fire engines in the city, one in the
vicinity of the treasury office and the other in the vicinity of
the capitol, neither of which were owned by the city.
Before the close of the year 1814 an engine had been purchased
entirely by city funds and placed in an engine house erected near
the Centre Market with money from the same source.t’ The
fire companies were composed of volunteers, but after the engine
was brought to the scene of the fire, the help of citizens generally
was relied upon to man the lines that were formed from the only
water supply, the wells or springs or streams, and along which
the buckets were passed to the engine. It was felt to be a
public duty to give assistance at such a time, and the names
of leading citizens are to be found enrolled as members of the
1 Jour. Com. Coun., Vol. 1, Oct. 23, 1805.
2 Intelligencer, June 6, 1812. Notice of a meeting of the company
in the engine house south of the treasury office, while in the issue of
the 13th the location is given as north of that building.
3 The same, March 11, 1809.
‘ City Ordinance, Nov. 15,1813. Intelligencer, Feb. 18 and Dee. 30,
1814. In later years the company bore the name of Perseverance.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 559
companies-and also recorded as helping to pass buckets. It is
not uncommon to find mentioned in the account of fires during
the earlier period of the continuance of the volunteer system,
that the president of the United States stood in line and passed
buckets, and also representatives of foreign governments. But
from the beginning the lack of discipline, the failure to take
proper care of the apparatus and the temptations offered to
young boys and men and the rowdy element to indulge in horse
play and free fights were the subject of constant complaint.
The troubles arising from such sources were not disposed of until
a paid fire department was substituted for volunteer companies,
and a good many years passed before that end was reached.
It was not until some twenty years after the city government
had been formed that any attempt was made to provide a
water supply for fire protection. Then rectangular openings
were dug at important points and lined with brick, and in these
reservoirs water was stored to be used in the emergency of a fire."
The site of the city was a well-watered plain lying at the foot
of the rim of hills that encircled it and forming the natural
drainage ground for the surface water that flowed through it in
numerous streams, some having their origin in springs within
the city’s area. One of the largest springs was on the north side
of C Street, between 43 and 6th streets, N. W.2. Three names
were given to the copious spring on the north side of F Street, a
short distance west of 9th Street, which is now concealed from
view beneath a portion of the old Masonic Temple at the north-
west corner of 9th and F streets, N. W. It was known as
Federal, also as Caffray’s Spring, and then again as the Hotel
Spring.’
Federal Spring also came to be the name of the one located
1The City Ordinance of July 11, 1818, making an appropriation
for building such a reservoir, is the first provision of the sort.
2 Lot 4, Square 490. Intelligencer, Sept. 16, 1801.
8 Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1802, Nov. 30, 1807, and Noy. 8, 1808. The
name that came into common use was Caffray’s Spring, which appar-
ently had its origin in its nearness to St. Patrick’s Church, of which
Rev. Mr. Caffry or Caffray, as the name was commonly spelled, was
the first minister.
560 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
just beyond the eastern bounds of the city and on a line with
the extension of F Street, N. E.1 An earlier name for this
fountain, as springs were frequently termed at this period,
was Young’s or Stoddert’s Spring, thus preserving the name of
the original proprietor of the land and that of Benjamin Stod-
dert, who bought it.2 Another abundant supply flowed from
the series of springs in the square subsequently purchased by
the government and known in later years as Franklin Park.
From these head waters flowed a stream of considerable size
from I Street, south along 13th Street, and thence east along H
Street, crossing 12th, 11th and 10th streets a short distance
south of H Street, and thence south through the tier of squares
between 9th and 10th streets until it reached the Tiber at B
Street. At an early day bridges spanned this stream in the
centre of F and E streets. Another large stream had its
source in the square bounded by 4th and 5th, K and L streets,
N. W., and flowed in an almost straight line south, passing
through the eastern part of Judiciary Square, crossing 4th
Street between D and E streets and thence across 3d Street
to Indiana Avenue along which it passed, joining the Tiber
on the line of Ist Street south of C Street. The main stream
of the Tiber that had its origin in branches arising north of
the bounds of the city, flowed to the south between the Judiciary
Square tributary and one that had its beginning at 12th and
G streets, N. E. This latter stream reached the main stem
of the Tiber just north of G Street between North Capitol
Street and New Jersey Avenue. The two branches of the Tiber
from the north united just south of L Street, between North
Capitol and Ist streets, N. E., and the force of the waters was
used to turn the stones of the grist-mill a short distance to the
1 Tn recent years an artificial ice plant was built over the spring, and
its waters are now turned into what has become one of the necessities
of city life.
2 Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1803. The size of this water source was such as
to lead B. H. Latrobe to give it serious attention as a possible supply
for the dry dock which was proposed to be built at the navy yard.
Intelligencer, Jan. 7,1803. American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Vol.
J, p. 104.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 561
south, owned by Notley Young, and which was probably in use
some time before the year 1802, when the earliest known refer-
ence is made to it.1_ Another large stream, known in later
years as Reedy Branch, crossed Florida Avenue between 17th
and 18th streets, N. W., and with many turns flowed south,
but mainly within those lines coming into Massachusetts
Avenue just west of 17th Street and along the Avenue nearly
to Scott Circle, when it turned to the south, crossing Rhode
Island Avenue and M Street between 16th and 17th streets,
and thence west through the tier of squares between L and
M streets, touching the former at 21st Street, and thence in a
northwesterly direction, emptying into Rock Creek at the foot
of 23d Street.
Between the Reedy Branch and the western branch of the
Tiber was a wooded section that came to bear the name of the
Whiteoak Slashes, and in general lay between 7th and 15th
streets and some distance north of New York Avenue and of
11th and H streets.?, The natural drainage of a large area of
the city was the Tiber, with its sources in the encircling hills and
many branches. As no attention was paid to a uniform grading
of the ground the disposal of the rainfall and surface drainage
continued to follow the course mapped out by nature. The
numerous open watercourses when swollen by rains and the
thaws of early spring were destructive of property along their
borders and also the low grounds were turned into swamps,
which constituted a menace to health. As the food of waters
rushed down from the hills and then quieted down as they spread
over the surface of the plain south of Pennsylvania Avenue
and west of 3d Street, W., deposits were left which choked up
the canal, and from its earliest days impaired its navigation.
Then when sewers emptying into the canal were built, and for
1 American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 104. Latrobe’s
report on the dry dock, Dee. 27, 1802. What was evidently the easterly
branch of the Tiber is referred to by Latrobe as Piney Branch.
2 Intelligencer, Dec. 138, 1852. Reminiscences of George Watterston.
The watercourses within the area of the city are traced in the map of
the city engraved by W. I. Stone and published in the National Calen-
dar for 1820, the third engraved map of the city.
VoL. I—20
562 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
many years they were only connected with the public buildings,
the healthfulness of the locality was not improved.
The first water supply of the city came from wells which were
dug by the city, one-half of the cost being assessed against
the property of the citizens in the immediate neighborhood."
For many years the pump mender was a municipal officer of
importance. From the wells citizens obtained their drinking
water and the supply for domestic uses. Those who could
afford it had their own wells, but for the large class who were
unable to meet such an expense, the municipal pump was
available. As the water supply came from the ground where
the dwellings were located the experience of Philadelphia and
other places where epidemics had pursued their devastating
course would have in all probability been repeated in Washing-
ton. Fortunately the chief source of soil contamination in
centres of population was not to be found in the capital city,
owing to the foresight of the city fathers in the third year of their
rule in prohibiting privy pits.2 The salutary effect of such a
regulation, which was never repealed, is to be found in the
freedom of the city from diseases which are due to drinking
impure water. But while a pump in one’s own yard, or even
a town pump at the corner of the block, was a great convenience,
still not more than five years had passed since the city govern-
ment began digging wells when some citizens wanted the greater
facility of water flowing through pipes to a hydrant to be
located near their homes. They did not expect to have it
done at public expense, even in part, but all they asked was
permission to lay the pipes underground along the streets.
Permission of this sort was granted to residents living in the
squares on each side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 6th and
7th streets, N. W. Forthwith water was conveyed from the
spring on C Street to Pennsylvania Avenue and was the first
service of the kind that the nation’s capital enjoyed. The fol-
1 City Ordinance, Aug. 20, 1803, and July 24, 1804.
? The same, May 13, 1805. In Alexandria such a prohibition was
not enacted until the ordinance of Aug. 7, 1811.
3 The same, Sept. 22, 1808. While the city law granted this privi-
lege to the inhabitants of the two squares, yet it seems probable it
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 563
lowing year a similar permit was granted to inhabitants on
Pennsylvania Avenue between 9th and 14th streets to connect
their houses and business places with Caffray’s Spring. In this
case, however, the city paid about one-third of the cost. A
number of years elapsed before any additions were made to the
water pipe service of the city, and the pumps, with the aid of
the pump doctor, continued to be the principal source of the
city’s supply.
The immunity enjoyed by the community from fire losses
did not lessen their possibility in the minds of some citizens,
and so an effort was made to organize an insurance company.
The project was not a new one in the District, for two years
before the removal of the government to the new locality,
Georgetown citizens had been given authority by the Maryland
legislature to organize a mutual company, and in the same year
the Virginia legislature had given permission to organize a
marine insurance company in Alexandria. One of Blodgett’s
abortive schemes was an insurance company organized in 1801.
Two years later the prospects of business in Alexandria were so
promising as to induce two companies doing business in Virginia
to get authority from congress to extend their operations so as
to include Alexandria.
There is no further record inregard to any of these companies,
and so it is impossible to say whether or not there were any
local fire insurance companies in the District in the year 1809.
At that time a meeting of citizens of Washington was called by
the mayor at the request of a number of persons interested in
the subject.2 As a result a committee was appointed to draft
articles of association for a mutual fire insurance company.
It may be concluded from a communication in the Intelligencer
was mainly a grant to John Underwood, the owner of the C Street
Spring and also of the hotel building, later on the Indian Queen, then
leased by George W. Lindsay.
1 City Ordinance, Aug. 4, 1809. Intelligencer, Aug. 21, 1809. The
locality of the spring was improved by the city, by building a paved
footway to it and surrounding it with a railing. Ordinance, July 26,
1815.
2 Intelligencer, Sept. 25, 1809.
564 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
commending the project that there were then no local means
of insurance from loss by fire in the city.1_ The current feeling
in regard to the fire department was no doubt expressed by
the writer when he said, “There is another important reason
—the bad organization and worse conduct of the institution
called the fire company.”
But the public did not respond, although nearly two years
after the plan had been announced it was stated the con-
templated number of subscribers had been obtained,” and the
following year a committee was appointed to draft a constitu-
tion,® yet there is no further mention of the company.
Two years later congress granted a charter to a fire insurance
company in Alexandria, and a year later another concern, the
Columbian Insurance Co., began business in that town, and
three years afterwards secured a charter from congress.*
In the same year the Franklin Fire Insurance Co., which is
still in existence, was chartered, the first privilege of the sort
conferred on a company in the city of Washington. At the time
the Franklin Co. began its career there were two local companies
in Alexandria and none in Georgetown.
While the municipality and citizens were safeguarding their
property interests, congress early saw to it that the District
should stand side by side with the states of the Union in con-
tributing its quota to the citizen soldiery constituting the militia
of the United States. President Jefferson shared with the
members of his party in the current enthusiasm that in a well-
equipped militia lay the solution of the problem of doing without
a standing army or at least keeping it down to a small enrol-
ment. It was in accordance with this policy that congress
early in the second year of the new administration inserted a
section in a general law relating to the District giving the
president authority to have the citizens of the District or-
ganized in accordance with the militia laws of Maryland and
Virginia enacted prior to December, 1800.°
1 Intelligencer, Oct. 5, 1810. 3 Same, March 12, 1812.
2 Same, March 23, 1811. 4 United States Law, Feb. 16, 1818.
5 Stats., Vol. 2, p. 1938, May 3, 1802.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 565
The president acted promptly. In a little more than a
month he announced the appointment of John Mason of
Georgetown as brigadier-general of the militia and of Daniel
Carroll Brent, the United States marshal of the District, as
colonel commandant of the first legion, or that of Washington
County. In the course of another month came the appointment
of the officers of the first and second legions or regiments, the
captains of the cavalry, the artillery and of the eight companies
of infantry.1. The organization of the volunteer companies,
as the artillery and cavalry were called, as well as of the bat-
talion companies, as the infantry was termed, proceeded with
such rapidity, aided no doubt by the current interest and also
the circumstance that the people were entirely familiar with
the system, which had been given up only about a year pre-
viously, that in four months after his appointment General
Mason was in a position to issue an order for a muster or review
of the first legion on the last day of October.2 Three days be-
fore this date the legion of Alexandria County, drawn up in two
battalions, cavalry and artillery on the right, the rifle com-
pany on the left, and under command of Colonel Peyton, the
colonel commandant, passed in review on the parade grounds
two miles from Alexandria before the president of the United
States, the secretary of war and General Mason. An address
was delivered by the militia commander.
A similar program was followed in Washington, where the
martial array was drawn up on the race course that lay for the
most part south of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 17th and
20th streets, N. W. It was noted with satisfaction that all the
officers and many of the members of the volunteer companies
were in complete uniform. The president and the secretary
of war were spectators and General Mason, from the centre
of a hollow square, delivered an address. As the men had been
ordered to be on the ground at ten o’clock in the morning, and
as the president did not appear until two o’clock, the first field
day proved to be a rather long one.* But the Washington
1 Intelligencer, June 26 and July 19, 1802.
2 The same, Oct. 27, 1802. 3 The same, Nov. 1 and 3, 1802.
566 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Federalist, the organ of the Federal party, took exception to one
feature of the occasion. The president as the commander-in-
chief of the army, it maintained, should have been in uniform.
The humor of Thomas Jefferson wearing a military uniform did
not appeal to the critic, as he was taken up with the seriousness
of a great principle at stake. It was this phase that drew the
fire of the Intelligencer and furnished an opportunity for enforc-
ing a popular Democratic doctrine. For while, exclaimed that
journal, the president is, as commander-in-chief of the army, a
military officer, he is head also of the civil government, which
is the supreme authority of the land, so that the military dress
is subordinate, while the civil dress is superior.?
From a military standpoint the appearance of the forces of
the District was no doubt open to criticism, as all in line did
not have uniforms. The following fall, it is recorded, when the
Washington County muster was held, “all were in uniform
except a few privates.”? Perhaps not the least remarkable
circumstance was that no less than 800 men were in the ranks
on that occasion, representing the military strength of Washing-
ton County. The following year in the official returns of the
militia of the country — the first when the figures for the Dis-
trict were given —the officers and men numbered 2241, or
17 per cent of the white population of the District.2 While
the general body of laws of the two states was regarded by con-
gress as adequate for the needs of the District, yet it is evident
that was not the case with the militia laws; for in the session fol-
lowing the enactment of 1802 a militia law for the District was
provided. It was an elaborate measure and so complete that
it remained, with but few changes, the only law on the subject
for many years. Within its scope came all able-bodied white
1 Intelligencer, Nov. 5, 1802.
2 The same, Oct. 10, 1803. A description of the uniforms adopted is
given in the issue of May 9, 1803. Each man furnished his uniform,
but the arms were provided by the general government.
3 Message from the president of the United States, transmitting
a statement of the militia of the states, Feb. 28, 1805. The returns
for the years 1809 and 1812 give practically the same total.
4Stats., Vol. 2, p. 215, March 3, 1803.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 567
males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five resident in
the District except the officers judicial, executive and legislative
of the government of the United States. The government
employees other than officers were not exempt, and two years
later a bill was introduced in the senate to free from militia
duty clerks in the executive departments, but it was voted down.!
The enrolment was made the duty of the officers of each com-
pany to be formed from those residing in the military districts
into which the District was divided. Then the citizen thus
enrolled, his consent not being necessary, received notice to
attend a muster of the company. Failure to respond was
punished by a fine ranging from seventy-five cents to five
dollars. The law authorized the seizure and sale of personal
property in cases where the penalties were not paid, and if no
property could be found, the delinquent could be arrested and
thrown into jail. Militia service was practically compulsory,
yet such features of the law were accepted by the community
without protest. This is evident from the circumstance that
hardly two years had passed before the attention of congress
was called to defects in the system in a memorial adopted by a
delegated convention of citizens of the entire District.2, Com-
pulsory enlistment or service was not alluded to, but the
District legislature was asked to reduce the number of annual
musters from eight to five, and also that the collection of penal-
ties be transferred from militia collectors to the Marshal of
the District. The wishes of the citizens in these particulars
were complied with, but not until seven years had passed.?
For nine or ten years, then, a large proportion of the male citizens
of the District were called upon eight times a year to don their
uniforms and take part in a company or battalion or legionary
muster, leaving for that day, without compensation and prob-
ably at a personal loss, their employment. It is evident after
1 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. 1, p. 337, Jan. 22, 1805.
Senate Journal, Vol. 3, p. 438.
2 Proceedings of Delegates, ete.,n.p. n.d. (1805.) Annals of Con-
gress, 8th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1621.
3 Law of July 1, 1812. Then the annual musters were reduced to
three.
568 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the first flush of interest the law was not fully carried out; for
otherwise the militia rolls would have reflected the growth of
the population instead of recording a stationary total. As the
years went on, the annual musters, which were the only fixed
duty, became perfunctory affairs, attended by officers and men
merely to escape the fines.
When, however, war threatened, then listlessness and in-
difference in the District militia disappeared. The spirit of the
men was tested when the entire country was thrown into a
state of excitement over the news in the summer of 1807 of
the forcible detention and search of the United States frigate
Chesapeake by a British vessel just outside the capes of Chesa-
peake Bay.!
At once companies were raised under the provisions of the
militia law. But while the young men of the town were seizing
their muskets and hurrying to the muster field, the advocates
of peace sought to avert the appeal to arms. A call was issued
for a meeting of “the subscribers to the association for settling
differences by arbitration.” * As nearly a month passed and
then another call for a meeting was issued, but with what
result has not been preserved,* it may be concluded that the
voice raised was not heard amid the clash of arms. The re-
sponse to the call of the president for the quota of the District
militia resulted in the tender of fifteen companies, aggregating
2000 men.® But war did not come, and the volunteers were
not called upon for active duty. A further instance of the state
of the public mind over the Chesapeake affair is found in the
fund which was raised in Washington for the relief of the sailors
who were injured. More than enough was contributed, and
so it was decided to use the balance in helping to pay for
the erection of a monument in the navy-yard in memory of
1 The Chesapeake had just come down the Potomac from the Wash-
ington navy-yard, where she had been fitted out. Under the command
of Commodore James Barron she sailed from Norfolk in June, 1807.
* Intelligencer, July 15, 17, 20 and 24, 1807.
3 Same, Oct. 14, 1807.
4Same, Novy. 11, 1807.
5 Same, Dee. 5, 1808.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 569
the “heroes that fell before Tripoli” in 1804.1 It had been
made at the expense of officers of the navy and had been
brought from Italy to the navy-yard in the Constitution and
was erected under the direction of B. H. Latrobe in the year
1808.”
The government preparations were not confined to calling out
the militia and in building gunboats; for during the winter of
1807-1808 congress also appropriated a million of dollars for
the defence of the ports and harbors of the United States.
By the end of the year Fort Washington on the Maryland side
of the Potomac opposite Mount Vernon had been made a forti-
fied place. For two years the government had occupied three
acres comprising Digges Point, as the bluff overlooking the river
where the Piscataway joins the waters of the Potomac, was
known, but had made no use of it except as a depository in a
small way of arms.* Then as the war clouds gathered, and the
vessels of England’s navy practically controlled the entrance
to the Chesapeake Bay, the defenceless and also exposed con-
dition of the capital city was recognized. The senate received
a report from the secretary of war in the last month of 1807,
in which attention was called to the commanding position of
Digges Point, which if provided with a battery and redoubt,
and with the aid of gunboats, would afford “protection to Alex-
andria, Washington and Georgetown against the approach of
any such naval force as reasonably could be expected.’”’* In the
course of a month the appropriation in bulk for fortifications
was made and a portion of it was used at Fort Washington,
as the place was officially known from the beginning of the
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 23, 1808.
2 Same, Dec. 23, 1808. Also a new guide to Washington. George
Watterston, 1842. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 14, Note, p. 28.
3 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 190, Jan.
10, 1806. The price of the three acres, $6000, was paid April 15,
1808, and on Aug. 31, 1815, nine additional acres were acquired for
$8451. Reports of Committees, House of Representatives, 20th
Cong., Ist Sess., No. 195, March 18, 1828. Also War Department
records. Also letter of Thomas Mason to Thomas A. Digges in James
Dudley Morgan’s collection.
4 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 221.
570 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
government ownership. An enclosed wall of brick and stone
was built and also a battery of like material.? The wall of the
fort had a semi-elliptical face with circular flanks on the side
next to the Potomac, mounting thirteen guns and commanded
by an octagon tower, a blockhouse of masonry, mounting six
guns. By the end of the year the work was completed and a
garrison of 120 men was established. Amid the strands
of the history of the early days of the District militia runs a
thread of romance. One of the appointments made by the
militia authorities in the summer of 1802 was that of John P.
Van Ness as major. Some six months previously Mr. Van Ness
had taken his seat in the house of representatives for the first
time. He was then thirty-three years of age, a member of a
well-known New York family of Dutch ancestry, and had come
from his family home Kinderhook to represent his district
in congress. Well connected, with a handsome person and
affable manners, he was popular and admired. A week after
the session closed, in May, 1802, he married Marcia Burnes,
the only daughter of the widow of David Burnes.* Miss
Burnes was twenty years of age and was living with her mother
in the house where she was born on the banks of the Tiber on the
west side of 17th Street. She had beauty and accomplishments
and was heir to the large property left by her father, situated for
the most part in that section of the city which even at the time of
her marriage was drawing to it the principal business and popu-
lation. The house, a long, one-story and attic frame structure,
which was the home of the family when it was surrounded by
farm lands, still served that purpose, although it then stood in
1The popular name in the early years was Fort Warburton. The
tract of land of which it had been a part was patented in the year 1641
as the Manor of Warburton to an ancestor of Thomas A. Digges, who
at that time was occupying the old manor house. Coll. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 75" p. 6:
2“The first digging of earth of the first fort at Warburton com-
menced on the 9th of May, 1808.” Letter of Richard L. Humphrey,
July 20, 1818, in James Dudley Morgan’s collection.
3 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, pp. 236 and 245.
4 Funeral discourse on the death of Mrs. Marcia Van Ness. Rev.
William Hawley, p. 31. Washington, 1832.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 571
a city square bounded by city streets which were delineated on
paper even though they had no real existence. Here it was the
wedding took place, and there the bridal couple made their
home with the widowed mother.
A little more than a month after the wedding Mr. Van Ness
received his militia appointment. The following December,
when the second session of the seventh congress opened, he
answered to the roll-call and entered upon the discharge of his
duties. A few weeks later the House was called upon to decide
whether Mr. Van Ness, holding “an office under the United
States” as major in the District militia, was,-under the con-
stitution, qualified to retain his seat. The decision was in the
negative and the seat was declared vacant. In the course of
the discussion, Mr. Van Ness expressed regret that his con-
stituents should be deprived of representation, but he did not
offer to take the obvious step of resigning what was merely an
honorary position.! It is evident that his marriage had deter-
mined his future, which was to be in the District instead of in the
state of his birth. Five years passed and Mrs. Burnes died.?
Her extensive realty holdings came to the daughter and then
to the latter’s husband. Soon after the death of Mrs. Burnes a
house was built by Mr. Van Ness on the south side of D Street,
adjoining the southwest corner of 12th Street, N. W.2 The
new house was of brick, built in the style of the period, with a
broad frontage, the second story surmounted by a sloping
roof pierced with dormer-windows. It was in this house that
Mr. Van Ness entertained his friend Washington Irving when
he visited the city in the early months of 1811. Mr. Irving
made the acquaintance for the first time of Mrs. Van Ness,
whom he describes as “a pretty, pleasant little woman and quite
gay.’ * The master of the house was widening his sphere as a
1 Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 395, Jan. 17, 1803.
2 Intelligencer, Feb. 2, 1807.
3The same, Sept. 14, 1808. The old house was rented. (Jntelli-
gencer, Oct. 9, 1813.) Its sturdy frame survived more than three-quar-
ters of a century and then was torn down. Evening Star, May 24,
1894. The square where it stood is now the site of the Pan-American
Building. 4 Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 263, Jan. 9, 1811.
572 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
man of affairs; for he was president of the branch in Washing-
ton of the United States Bank, the largest financial institution
of the day.!. He had retained his connection with the militia,
and when, after a service of three years as colonel of the first
legion, Daniel Carroll Brent resigned, he was succeeded by Mr.
Van Ness.2, When General Mason retired as head of the militia
service in 1811, on account of the demands upon his time of the
duties of superintendent of the Indian trade, Mr. Van Ness was
named in his place. As compared with the home which Mr.
Van Ness built some eight years later, going back to the same
square where the Burnes house stood, the D Street house was
small and insignificant. But it was in keeping with the way of
living in the Washington of that day. Until the more stately
Van Ness residence was built there were no other private houses
within the limits of the city except the Octagon, Duddington
and Young houses that compared with it either in size or in
cost.
An addition had been made to the class of larger residences
in the District in the year 1810 when Thomas Peter, whose wife
was a granddaughter of Mrs. Washington and who had early
established his home at 2618 K Street, N. W., employed Dr.
Thornton to design a house which he built on a site that still
remains somewhat reduced in extent on the north side of Q
Street, between 31st and Valley streets. As Tudor Place, and
still in the occupancy of his descendants, this old house remains
a charming example of the simple lines of the architecture of
1 Intelligencer, March 10, 1806. A position he held until the charter
of the bank expired.
2 The same, Jan. 28, 1805. Three years later Mr. Brent was suc-
ceeded as United States Marshal by Washington Boyd, the treasurer
of the city.
3’ The same, April6 and July 4, 1811. The Indian trade was one of
the benevolent devices of the government and was designed to supply
the Indians with such articles as they needed in exchange for furs.
A large storehouse was located in Georgetown, and the character of
its contents may be gathered from an advertisement signed by John
Mason and printed in the Intelligencer of April 21, 1809. It is in
part as follows: ‘‘Upward of 4000 racoon skins offered for sale at the
Indian Trade Office, Georgetown.”’
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF Bye}
the period: In the year 1805 Joseph Nourse, the register of
the treasury, bought four acres of the southern section of the
tract of land bounded by Q Street on the south and 28th Street
on the west near the edge of the gorge of Rock Creek and then
just north of the corporate limits of Georgetown. The northern
portion was owned by Samuel Davidson, where he had erected
a residence which was called Evermay and which still remains a
handsome place in spite of the years.!_ Mr. Nourse lived there
until about the year 1813, when he sold the place to Charles
Carroll, a brother of Daniel Carroll of Duddington, and
erected a home on the east side of Wisconsin Avenue, between
Quebec and Sedgwick streets, owned by his descendants as late
as the year 1912.2. In giving up even such a home as he had on
the banks of Rock Creek, with ample grounds about it, and retir-
ing to a farm, Mr. Nourse’s course was not without precedent,
As early as 1803, Samuel H. Smith, the editor of the Intelligencer,
was living on his farm Sidney,’ while to the south was Clover
Hill, the home of Dr. Phineas Bradley, of the Post Office Depart-
ment. Mr. Bradley bought his farm in the year 1809, and five
years later his brother, Abraham Bradley, assistant postmaster
general, became the owner of Chevy Chase, a tract of 233
acres a short distance north of the District line in Maryland.®
Three years before Mr. Bradley gave up his city home, Judge
William Cranch offered for sale the two-story frame house
where he was living at Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street,
S. E., and removed to Alexandria.6 The mayor of the city,
Robert Brent, living in the Notley Young house on G Street,
1 Land records, Liber B, fol. 53. $650 is the consideration named in
the Davidson deed dated June, 1794, for the 1025 acres.
2The same, Liber A, F, fol. 18. Mr. Carroll called the place
Bellevue. The house stands directly in the line of Q Street.
3 First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 43. The property
is now the site of the Catholic University.
4 Coll. Hist. Soc. The Bradley Family, p. 134. The farm is now
Glenwood Cemetery.
5’ The same, p. 133. The Chevy Chase Club now owns the property.
6 Intelligencer, Jan. 19,1810. Greenleaf and Law, p. 56. He did not
return to Washington to live until the year 1826. Judge Cranch also
574 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
S. W., was considered by an early English observer as rank-
ing with Daniel Carroll and John Tayloe as having homes
which were the only houses of gentlemen in the city he could
recall.}
About the year 1809 Mr. Brent left the old manor house and
took possession of a house he had built at the southeast corner
of Maryland Avenue and 12th Street, S. W.?. It was not until
after the second war with England that even one member of
either house had his own home establishment within the city.
During the first seven or eight years the members for the most
part came without their families and lived in boarding houses
and hotels. For two years and a half after Mr. Jefferson became
president the diplomatic corps consisted of four persons, only
one of whom had the rank of minister.*’ There is no record up
to the year 1803 of a representative of a foreign government
establishing his home in the new district, except M. Pichon,
who lived in Georgetown,’ until the arrival of Anthony Merry,
the minister from England in the fall of that year. After land-
ing at Norfolk with Mrs. Merry he came directly to the city and
at once leased from Robert Peter two large brick houses on the
south side of K Street between 26th and 27th streets, N. W.,
where also his successors, David M. Erskine and Francis J. Jack-
son, lived.6 Mr. Merry described the location of his new home as
owned a farm about one mile from the Washington bridge, between
the Washington and the Georgetown roads.
1 From a review of a manuscript of a book by Sir Augustus Foster,
secretary British legation, that was not published, giving gossipy
details about Washington during the years 1804-1806. Quarterly
Review, 1841. Extracts in the Washington Sketch Book, 1864.
2 Deed of Nicholas Young to Robert Brent of the entire Square 327.
Nov. 3, 1809.
3 Places of abode of members of both houses, 1805, 1807, 1809 and
1816.
4 Marquis Carlson M. De Irujo was the minister from Spain, Edward
Thornton and L. A. Pichon, chargé des affaires from England and
France, and Pedro Pederson, consul from Denmark.
5 Dr. Mitchell’s Letters from Washington. Harper’s. April, 1879,
p. 744, Feb. 8, 1802.
6 Adams’s History, Vol. 2, p. 362, and Vol. 5, p. 116. The houses
now known as 2618 and 2620 K Street are marked by a bronze tablet
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 575
situated “on the commons which is meant to be the city of
Washington.” They were “mere shells of houses,” he states,
“with bare walls and without fixtures of any kind, even with-
out a pump or well.”
Six years later, when Mr. Jackson arrived, the appearance of
the city reminded him of Hemstead Heath, and he speaks of his
house as standing “among the fields, looking over Rock Creek
to Georgetown.” “TI put up a covey of partridges,” he wrote,
Oct. 7, 1809, “about three hundred yards from the house of
congress, yclept the Capitol.’’ He admired what visitors, both
native and foreign, from the earliest days of the city had spoken
about, “the beautifully picturesque appearance of the country,”
and had “no where seen finer scenery than is caused by the
Potomac and the woods and hills about it, yet it has a wild,
desolate air from being so scantily and rudely cultivated and for
the want of population.” !
A year after he came to the city, Mr. Merry had near at hand
a diplomat holding an equal rank, for General Turreau, a mar-
shal of France and noted for showy uniforms, had presented his
credentials as minister from that country and established the
legation in the corner house of the Seven Buildings at the north-
west corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street, N. W.?
Mr. Merry’s description of the bareness and desolation of Wash-
ington, while borne out in the main by the actual conditions,
was no doubt painted in gloomier colors than possibly otherwise
would have been the case if he and Mrs. Merry had not been
vexed and disturbed by the social order which Mr. Jefterson had
seen fit to adopt. The weekly levees of Washington and Adams
placed there by the D. A. R. committee on historic spots. The will
of Robert Peter (Register of Wills Office, Vol. 1, p. 169, June 23, 1809)
and deeds by David Peter and others serve to identify the houses.
According to a deed recorded Oct. 14, 1812 (Liber A, D., folio 319),
Mr. Erskine at one time occupied a Peter house on lot 31, Square 100
(west side of 20th between L and M streets). Prior to 1808 some of
the attachés lived in one of the Six Buildings. Jntelligencer, March 25,
1808.
1 Adams’s History, Vol. 5, p. 116.
2 Intelligencer, March 15, 1809. Advertisement offering for rent the
house lately occupied by General Turreau.
576 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
were done away with. As the servant of the people the presi-
dent could be seen at any time. When brought together in
society Mr. Jefferson held all are perfectly equal, whether foreign
or domestic, titled or untitled. The principle of equality or
péle-méle was to be observed.! While doing away with the
weekly receptions, Jefferson continued the custom of receiving
those who called to pay their respects to the president on the
first day of the year and on the fourth of July. The first public
reception held in the president’s house in the new city was on
the national anniversary in 1801. Six months later, on the
first day of the new year, the people went to the president’s
house and greeted the president and ate the cake and drank
the wine that was passed around, and then went “to the mam-
moth room and saw the mammoth cheese”’ as the president ex-
pressed it, after receiving his guests in the room now known as
the Blue Room and in extending to them an invitation to go
into the East Room and view the cheese weighing some 1600
pounds, which had been presented to him that day.”
The custom of going from house to house on New Year’s day,
making calls, as observed in New York city at that period, was
not adopted in Washington for a good many years; Dr. Mitchell
notes that every one went to the president’s and then returned
home.®
But the hospitalities at the president’s house were not re-
duced in extent, only the form was changed. President
Jefferson had a French cook and his wines were famous as well
as abundant.* On one occasion at a dinner given by the presi-
1 Jefferson code of etiquette. Works, Vol. 9, p. 454. Foreign
ministers were to pay the first visit to the ministers of the nation,
their wives were to receive the first visit from the wives of national
ministers or from other residents.
? Life of Manasseh Cutler, Vol. 2, p. 54. The great cheese, which
did not contain a drop of milk from a federal cow, had been brought on
a sleigh from Cheshire, Mass., by the promoter of this novel gift, John
Leland, a Baptist minister. Mr. Cutler ate some of this great cheese,
which was served with the cake and punch at the New Year’s reception
at the president’s house, Jan. 1, 1805, four years later.
* Dr. Mitchell’s Letters. Harper’s. April, 1879, p. 742, Jan. 4,
1802. ‘See Dr. Mitchell’s Letters, and Rev. Mr. Cutler’s Life.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF ayes
dent, Dr. Mitchell, who was a cultivated New Yorker and noted
for his scientific as well as general knowledge, states that ice
cream was served in the form of balls of frozen material enclosed
in covers of warm pastry. The president entertained the
members of congress in blocks of ten, but as it was remarked,
“all federalists one day, all democrats another.” ! But party
feeling became so intense that presidential dinner invitations
were not sent to members of the party opposed to the admin-
istration.? In addition to the novelty of a social experience
when dinner guests were left to go to the table as they pleased
and to seat themselves as they saw fit, the English minister
had an uneasy feeling, that soon gave place to wrath, when he
attended his first dinner at the president’s house in the fall of
1802 that an insult was intended to England when the president,
whose home had no woman at its head, gave his arm to Mrs.
Madison, the wife of the secretary of state, and escorted her to the
table, thus ignoring Mrs. Merry, to whom custom gave that
honor. The English government was duly informed of this
proceeding, as well also of the further trial to the minister’s
dignity, both personally and officially, for as he states when he
was about to seat himself next to the wife of the Spanish minis-
ter, a member of congress quickly passed him and took the
seat.2 A few weeks before this Mr. Merry, in full uniform and
escorted by the secretary of state, came to the president’s house
to be formally presented. He was surprised, and also shocked,
to find the president in shabby disordered dress and wearing
slippers without heels.
This was the garb Mr. Jefferson wore when Senator Plummer
of New Hampshire called upon him in December, 1802, but two
years later the same observer notes the president had laid aside
the old slippers, red waistcoat and soiled corduroy small-clothes,
and wore a black suit with clean linen, and his hair was powdered.
It is presumed that politics, both national and international,
1 Life of William Plummer, p. 245, Dec. 25, 1802.
2Same, p. 338, Jan. 1, 1806. ‘‘The Federalists generally declined
calling on the President to-day with the compliments of the season on
the ground they had not been invited to dine with him this session.”
3 Letter quoted in Adams’s History, Vol. 2, p. 370.
VOL. I—2P
578 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
had as much to do with forming the president’s social code as
democratic principles, of which he was the exponent. As soon
as Mr. Madison came to the president’s house with his wife,
whose beauty and social charm and tact made her a universal
favorite, even after her husband was out of public life, the recog-
nized custom was revived and the evening levees or drawing-
rooms became popular features of social life! In the mean-
time the social world of Washington had its first thrill of excite-
ment. Nothing else was talked about but the Merrys’ affair
with the president, and as stated it was made the subject of
lengthy despatches to the home government. It was not an
extensive circle, for two years later the Washington social season
of two weeks in a winter was described as a round of “parties
crowded into little rooms in the different houses here by going
three and four miles and sometimes six miles every evening.” ?
When congress adjourned and the summer came, the members
of the diplomatic corps left Washington for a more comfortable
and interesting place of residence. For the most part Philadel-
phia was the choice. In the fall of 1808, the editor of the Intelli-
gencer stated in reply to an inquiry relative to the residence of
foreign ministers “that none of them are now or have been for
a considerable time at the seat of government.” ? Both Presi-
dents Jefferson and Madison went to their homes in Virginia
during the recess of congress, but kept in touch with the public
business through the mails.4| When President Madison had
reason in the middle of the summer of 1809 to go to Washington
for a few days, he describes the city in a letter to his wife as “a
solitude.” ° Two years later Washington Irving, who continued
in the city after the adjournment of congress in March, exclaims,
1 Adams’s History, Vol. 5, p. 121.
?The Two Duchesses. London, 1898, p. 275. March 10, 1806.
Augustus Foster, secretary of legation, to his mother, the Duchess of
Devonshire.
3 Oct. 31, 1808.
‘““The Postmaster General has established a daily conveyance of
the mail from Fredericksburg to Monticello during my stay.’’ Letter
of Jefferson, Washington, July 31, 1807. Jefferson Papers, Series 6,
Vol. 12, p. 228.
’ Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison, p. 66.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 579
“You cannot imagine how forlorn this desert city appears to
me, now the great tide of casual population has rolled away.” }
But as the years went on the social attractions of Washington
exerted an influence which has continued to be an important
factor in its development. Members of congress ceased to live
while in Washington as monks in their cells or boarding houses,
as Mr. Wolcott concluded they would have to do in the new city,
and which to a large extent was done in the early years. In the
fall of 1811 Mrs. Madison records “we have now members in
abundance with their wives and daughters.”? As intelligent
observers of the day record, many marriages followed a Wash-
ington season. It was a society not of wealth, but of interest-
ing men and women of the country. Card parties where money
stakes were not uncommon, balls and dinners, were the usual
round. The women were described by one writer as “generally
highly gifted in mental as they are also adorned with personal
endowments ”’*; while another observer a few years earlier de-
clared he had never seen “prettier girls anywhere.” They
were also “good tempered and if not well! informed, capable of
becoming so.”’ 4
“T may compare this place,” wrote Washington Irving in 1811,
“to a huge library where a man may turn to any department of
knowledge he pleases and find an author at hand into which he
may dip, until his curiosity is satisfied.”’> He found “the most
complete medley of characters I have ever mingled amongst.”
His social engagements for a week comprised a dinner with the
officers’ mess at the Barracks, and in the evening a ball at Mr.
Van Ness’s; a dinner with General Turreau, and in the evening
Mrs. Madison’s levee, “which was brilliant and crowded with
interesting men and fine women”’; a dinner at Mr. Latrobe’s;
1 Life and Letters. March 11, 1811. Vol. 1, p. 273.
2 Memoirs and Letters, p. 82.
3 Warden, p. 97. This book, the second giving an account of the
District, and the first describing the city, was written by D. B. Warden,
who was in the diplomatic service of this country in France and the
author of a number of books. He visited Washington in 1811.
4 Augustus Foster. Washington Sketch Book, pp. 104 and 105.
5 Life and Letters. Vol. 1, p. 268.
580 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
a dinner with the secretary of the navy, Paul Hamilton, who
occupied Mr. Tayloe’s house, and in the evening a ball at the
mayor’s, Mr. Brent’s, residence.t Mr. Irving made a second
visit to the city in April of the same year in connection with the
commercial business in which he was then interested with his
brothers, and states he made “a very expeditious journey of 52
hours from New York.’ He travelled by stage except from the
head of the Chesapeake Bay to Baltimore, where he used the
steamboat. At Baltimore he took an extra stage at 8 A.M., and
reached Washington about half past four in the afternoon. On
his first trip in January he states he reached Washington, “ after
literally struggling through the mud and mire all the way from
Baltimore,” while on the same occasion “my journey to Balti-
more was terrible and sublime.’”’ To Washington at the close
of the year 1805 came Joel Barlow, authorand ardent Republican,
after a long residence abroad, where he had accumulated wealth.
He was a friend and correspondent of Mr. Jefferson, and as early
as 1801 he had informed the president that his private affairs
were on such a footing “that my intention is to devote the re-
mainder of my life to the promotion of the solid improvement
of the country, social, political and economical.” ?
On account of his wife’s health the voyage home was not
undertaken until May, 1805. In the meanwhile he was deeply
interested in the experiments made by his friend, Robert Fulton,
bothin France and in England, with the steamboat and submarine
torpedo. Soon after he reached his native country, Mr. Barlow
wrote to Mr. Jefferson that he proposed “to pass the winter at
or near Washington, and to look out for a place to pitch our
tents for the residue of our lives.” * By December, 1805, Mr.
Barlow was occupying rooms at Mrs. Doynes’, a congressional
boarding house on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, just
west of 6th Street, N. W.* At this time a memorial had been
1 Life and Letters. Vol. 1, p. 268.
2 Barlow to Jefferson, Aug. 25, 1801. Jefferson Papers, 2d Series,
Vol. 7, p. 9. Also other letters upon which the account is based.
3 Same, Aug. 4, 1805.
‘First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 48. Mrs. Smith,
who was interested in Mrs. Doynes’ success, states she recommended
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 581
laid before congress by Mr. Blodgett, asking for federal aid for
a national university, and Mr. Barlow prepared what he called
a “Prospectus of a National University,” which was issued in
pamphlet form the latter part of January, 1806, from the press
of Samuel H. Smith The following fall Robert Fulton re-
turned to the United States, where he found the engine which
had been ordered to be made in London after the tests in the
year 1804 on the Seine in France, which had convinced him as
well as his moneyed associate, Robert R. Livingston, of the
practicability of the steamboat, although it had not made a
similar impression on the commission appointed by Napoleon.?
For the two years following the experience in France Mr.
Fulton was engaged in the fruitless undertaking of trying to
convince the English government officials of the merits of a
submarine torpedo which he had invented. A few weeks after
he reached this country he hastened to Washington, intent on
submitting to the American government his torpedo.’
In the meanwhile Mr. Livingston had secured from the New
York legislature an extension of the steamboat monopoly; a
boat was built and the engine brought from England, set up
and in August, 1807, the Clermont made her successful trip.
The first season spent by Mr. Fulton in Washington appears
to have been devoted to a campaign of education among the
statesmen for the adoption of his torpedoes. He found in
New York more interest in his plan of warfare, as the citizens
there were uneasy about the defenceless condition of the city
and especially so after the Chesapeake affair. He showed his
invention in New York, and in July, 1807, sent to the president
an elaborate description of his torpedo.
the place to Mr. Barlow, who has taken ‘‘a parlor and a bedroom which
are very neatly furnished, and the stable. He pays her $40 a week for
himself, wife, and two servants.”
1He sent the manuscript first to the president. Jan. 7, 1806.
Jefferson Papers. Same.
2 McMaster, Vol. 3, p. 489.
’This was the first visit of Mr. Fulton to Washington. The
Intelligencer in the issue of Jan. 2, 1807, states, ‘““We have the pleasure
of noting the arrival in this city of our fellow-citizen Mr. Fulton, a
man no less distinguished for science than beneficence, etc.”’
582 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
When he returned to Washington in the fall of 1807, after the
record-breaking trip of the Clermont, he found his friend Mr.
Barlow had carried out his long-cherished purpose and had
established himself in a permanent home. It is interesting to
note that Mr. Barlow was the pioneer of a class, that in late years
has become numerous, people who have the opportunity and the
means to live where they please and who choose Washington.
He purchased in 1807 from William Augustine Washington the
finest place in the vicinity of the city. His appreciation of the
location and the beauty of the surroundings of this residence,
with grounds of some sixty acres between the banks of Rock
Creek and the bounds of the city, is preserved in the name Belair,
with which he replaced the name Rock Hill, but later on sub-
stituted Kalorama, “the beautiful view.” 4
When Mr Barlow took possession of his new home Robert
Fulton was his guest and it was from there that he carried on his
campaign to win governmental recognition for his invention,
the submarine torpedo.” His efforts were continued for several
years. Under date of Feb. 9, 1809, he wrote to the president,
“T have invited some members of the senate and house of repre-
sentatives to call at Kalorama on Sunday next at one o’clock
to see the experiment of harpooning and investigate the prin-
ciple of torpedo attacks.” These experiments took place in
Rock Creek.
Two years after Mr. Barlow became a resident of the city
he joined with other citizens in organizing the Bank of Washing-
ton.? When the citizens held a fourth of July celebration in
1810, Mr. Barlow was invited to pronounce the oration. As
“our first poet,” as Mr. Jefferson termed him,® and as “the
1 Barlow to Jefferson, dated ‘‘ Belair cedevant Rock Hill.” Dee. 9,
1807. Jefferson Papers, 2d Series, Vol. 7, p. 9.
2 The first letter of Fulton in the Jefferson Papers dated Belair is
on Dec. 9, 1807, and the first with Kalorama in the date line is a letter
of Feb. 9, 1809.
3 Intelligencer, Oct. 6, 1809.
4The same, July 3, 1810.
5 Jefferson to Barlow, June 14, 1807. Jefferson Papers. 2d Series,
Vol. 7, p. 9.
MEASURES OF POOR RELIEF 583
greatest poet of our country,” as Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith
described him,! and as the friend of the president and a man of
wealth, Mr. Barlow for the four years of his residence was a
figure of importance in the social and official life of the capital.
He was thought also to have political aspirations, and if
so they were in a measure at least gratified by his receiving in
the year 1811 the appointment of minister to France at a period
when the relations between the two countries were delicate.
He left Washington, and as it proved finally, on this mission in
the fall of 1811, and his home at Kalorama was leased by the
French minister to this country, M. Seurrier, who shared with
Mr. Barlow the love of the beauty and adornment of nature and
spent much time in caring for the extensive grounds that sur-
rounded the house.” In the year 1805, when Mr. Barlow came
to the city, Gilbert Stuart, the successful portrait painter of the
day, had just closed his studio in Washington, which he had
for two seasons. About the date of Mr. Stuart’s coming, St.
Memin was also established in the city, adding to his collection
of engraved miniature portraits.’
1 Hirst Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 48.
2 A year after the death of her husband, while on a journey in Russia
in 1812, Mrs. Barlow resumed her residence at Kalorama, where she
lived until her death in 1818. Coli. Hist. Soce., Vol. 18, p.106.
3 Intelligencer, Nov. 12, 1804. Anannouncement of St. Memin, then
apparently spending his second season in the city. His period of
Washington residence was from 1803 to 1806, while Stuart spent the
seasons of 1803-1805 in Washington. In the year 1805 (/ntelligencer,
Feb. 25) St. Memin had his studio at the southwest corner of 14th
and F streets. Stuart’s studio was on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the
neighborhood of 6th Street, and it was afterwards occupied by C. Boyle,
a painter from Baltimore. Jntelligencer, March 11, 1808. Mr. Boyle
subsequently established a museum of natural history, the first in the
city. Intelligencer, March 7, 1811. See also Warden, p. 83.
CHAPTER XXI
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY
THE active operations of the futile Burr conspiracy in the
southwest came to an end practically at the close of the year
1806. The final scenes were then transferred in part to Wash-
ington. For there had been brought to the city under arrest
by the military authorities in New Orleans, Enrick Bollman and
Samuel Swartwout, emissaries of Burr charged with treason.
They had been seized without legal warrant, and it was the desire
of the president that they should be prosecuted. As soon as the
prisoners reached the city, which was in January, 1807, the presi-
dent on the same day came to the capitol and delivered to the
district attorney, Walter Jones, the affidavit of General James
Wilkinson, military commander of the territory of Orleans, and
instructed him to demand of the court a warrant for the.arrest.!
The case was heard by the judges of the circuit court, and with
the chief judge, Mr. Cranch, dissenting because of “the gross
violation of personal liberty,” the warrant was issued. Less
than two years before Judge Cranch, a relative and an appointee
of John Adams, as well as a member of the Federal party, had
been appointed by the president to be the chief judge of the
court. He had reason to feel under obligations to Jefferson,
and at this time he knew that the president was most anxious
to bring the conspirators to justice. Judge Cranch, however,
followed what he saw was the path of duty, and in doing so left
on record that never in his life had he been more anxious.
The case of the two men was taken on habeas corpus pro-
ceedings to the United States Supreme Court, and that tribunal
set them free. It was this decision that stirred the indigna-
tion of members of the dominant party and led to the introduc-
tion of a bill to suspend such writs for a given period.
1 Letter of Judge Cranch. Greenleaf and Law, p. 53.
584
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 585
The case of the government was argued before both courts
by Walter Jones, a resident of Alexandria, and for three years
past holding the office of district attorney by appointment of
President Jefferson. For seventeen years, or until the year
1821, Mr. Jones, who the year following the case above noted,
established his home in this city, held the office. His charm as
a public speaker and his knowledge of the law gave him for
many years the first place at the District bar. Early in Janu-
ary another manifestation of the Burr case was seen in Washing-
ton, astonishing in its revelations of the possibilities of the
depths of human degradation. The publication of the Atlantic
World, a weekly newspaper, was begun by John Wood in the
interests of Aaron Burr.! As was openly stated in the published
prospectus, the editor, John Wood, was the late editor of the
Western World of Kentucky, the publication of which was
begun in Frankfort, Kentucky, the previous summer. The
proprietor was Joseph H. Daveiss, the United States district
attorney of Kentucky and a strong Federalist, and his object
was to bring to light the connection of certain leading men of the
Republican party of that state in the movement in 1787 to estab-
lish an independent government west of the Alleghanies under
the protection of Spain. The men who were to be attacked
were believed by Daveiss to be reviving the same project under
the leadership of Burr. He secured as editor of the paper
John Wood, whose standards as a man and inordinate appetite
for notoriety may be judged from the fact that he had written
a slanderous book entitled “The history of the administration
of John Adams,”’ having first made an agreement with Aaron
Burr that he would purchase and suppress it, which was done.
Now Wood appeared as the editor of a paper attacking Burr,
and then some seven months later began the publication of a
paper in Washington in his defence, and as it was said at the
time with money furnished by Burr.’ It is probable the publi-
cation was not continued many weeks. In addition to affording
1 Intelligencer, Jan. 9 and 23, 1807.
2Dr. Mitcheli’s Letters. Feb. 13, 1807. Harper’s, April, 1879,
Dal
586 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
a rather unusual instance of venality, the issue of the Atlantic
World has another claim to attention, as it was the first news-
paper to be published in Washington in the interests of an
individual rather than of an individual as the representative of
a party. There was no pretence that the paper was to supply a
need in the community where it was to be published, nor in
fact did the conditions of the newspaper business in the District
during the seven years that had elapsed since the removal of the
government justify sanguine expectations in a field where the
rate of mortality seemed to be on the increase. Only one
daily paper now was published where seven years before four
had appeared. The surviving daily was the Alexandria Daily
Advertiser. It shared the field south of the Potomac with a
semi-weekly, the Hxpositor.2 During the summer of 1807 the
editor of the Expositor, Richard Dinmore, began the publica-
tion in Washington of the Washington Expositor and Weekly
Register, devoted to political economy. The Alexandria paper
ceased to appear, and he announced the new Washington weekly
would be supplied to the subscribers.*
The vacant place in the Alexandria community was not
filled until four years later, when the Alexandria Herald, a semi-
weekly, was issued in June, 1811.4
Georgetown figured more largely than Alexandria in the
annals of the early District press, due of course to its proximity
to the national capital. It was selected as the place of publica-
tion of the Washington Federalist, the organ of the minority
1The name was changed in 1809 to the Alexandria Gazette. It
was Federal in polities.
? First issued as a tri-weekly under the name of Alexandria Ezposi-
tor and Columbian Advertiser, Nov. 26, 1802, Vol. 1, No. 1, and then
as a semi-weekly, probably in November, 1805, when the name was
simply the Expositor. Also weekly edition for country subscribers
under the name of the Alexandria Expositor.
3 Intelligencer, Aug. 28, 1807.
‘The Wisconsin Historical Library has a file from June, 1811, to
June, 1812. Also the same as tri-weekly from. June, 1815, to May,
1819. A note in the catalogue states the paper was established in
June, 1811, by John Corse and N. Rounsavell, and was published by
them until 1819. Afterward by Rounsavell and Henry Pittman. By
Pittman alone after 1822.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 587
party, and at the close of nine years, first as a daily and then as
a tri-weekly, it ceased to appear! During this period a number
of ventures were made from presses set up in Georgetown.? In
Washington, where the field had been first occupied after it had
become a national centre by the National Intelligencer, that
paper continued to maintain a dominant position. It was
issued tri-weekly from the beginning to the year 1813, when it
became daily.’
At the time the Intelligencer was broadening its scope, the
Federalist was bringing to an unsuccessful close its career. It
may naturally be inferred that the prestige of the dominant
party and public patronage had a decisive influence in the des-
tinies of these two papers. The Intelligencer, however, in its
material prosperity undoubtedly reflected the influence of the
policy dictated by the calm, sound and judicious temperament of
the editor, Mr. Smith, which was continued in the unusual
1The latest issues known are one or more of the year 1809 in the
American Antiquarian Society library.
2Some of these are as follows: Columbian Repository, a weekly,
Harvard College library, Sept. 30, 1803, Vol. 1, No. 1. It had more
the character of a periodical than a newspaper. A publication similar
in this respect was the Olio, a weekly. The file of this paper in the
same library begins with March 13, 1803, Vol. 1, No. 46, and ends with
Aug. 4, 1803, Vol. 2, No. 6. The Spirit of Seventy-Siz, about 1809-
1814, semi-weekly, Edward C. Stannard succeeded by J. M. and
J. B. Carter and then by the latter. First published in Washington
and then in Georgetown. Intelligencer, Nov. 29, 1809, announcement
of the proposed publication ‘‘formerly printed in Richmond.” See
Coll. Hist. Soe., Vol. 9, p. 101, for an account of this paper, of which the
issue of March 4, 1814, in the library of congress is the only copy
known.
There is also a record of the publication of the Museum and George-
town Advertiser, Jan. 21—Oct. 10, 1809, at first weekly and then semi-
weekly; the Independent American, tri-weekly. Intelligencer, March
23, 1811, advertisement offering the property for sale.
3 At the beginning of the year 1809, Joseph Gales, Jr., who had been
eonnected with the paper for two years became associated with Mr.
Smith in the management, and a year later purchased the property,
Mr. Smith, on account of his health, retiring for a time to private life.
(Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 1810.) In October, 1812, William W. Seaton,
late editor of the Raleigh Register and a brother-in-law of Mr. Gales, ac-
quired an interest, and the paper was issued by the firm of Gales and
Seaton. (Intelligencer, Oct. 8, 1812.)
588 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
partnership of business friends that has surrounded the firm
of Gales and Seaton with a sort of a halo of romance that Charles
Dickens threw about the firm of Cheeryble Bros.
Two years after Mr. Smith retired from the paper G. B.
Warden, who was familiar with European conditions, stated in
his book about the District that the Intelligencer was regarded
abroad as the organ of the government. But such eminence,
which was no doubt gratifying in the editorial room, was not in
evidence at this period to any large extent in the business office.
It was not until some years after the war of 1812 that the
Intelligencer was able to begin to own the building where its
business was located. Certainly there is no indication for the
first twelve years that its prosperity was such as to attract
competitors. For as the years went on it was left practically
alone in the field. After the early competitors had dropped
out and up to the year 1807 there is only the record of the
attempt to start two papers in Washington and from the titles
it may be concluded that both were designed to appeal to the
general tastes of the public for reading matter rather than to its
interests in political and current affairs. John Wood’s Atlantic
World in 1807 presumably ended its career in the course of a
few months, and then in the first month of 1808 appeared the
Washington Expositor, a weekly issued by Dinmore and Cooper.?
In the same month Mr. Dinmore began the issue of his paper,
the publication of a weekly register of politics was begun by
J. B. Colvin with the title Colvin’s Weekly Register The
name was soon changed to the Monitor, and it was issued three
times a week and then in the summer of 1809, less than two years,
the editor announced that owing to insufficient support, the
1The American Literary Advertiser, a weekly which began publica-
tion about March, 1802, was in existence as late as Sept. 23, 1803,
Vol. 2, No. 82. Except a notice in the Intelligencer, of Nov. 30, 1804,
that it was proposed to publish the American Magazine, nothing more
is known of that venture.
2 Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan. 2, 1808. The death of Mr. Dinmore occurred
two years later. Intelligencer, Sept. 28 and Oct. 9, 1811.
$ Intelligencer, Nov. 13, 1807. Octavo form from Jan. 16 to April
30, 1808.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 589
publication would cease! The printing materials at the office,
11th and F streets, N.W., were offered for sale, and as that had
not produced enough to pay his debts, Mr. Colvin announced
he would give up each year to his creditors $300 of his $1150
salary as clerk in the state department,? and where it was
charged he continued to employ his pen in the interests of the
Republican party.2 From journalism as an interest outside of
his government position Mr. Colvin now turned to law, and the
public was duly informed that he will “attend to law business
at his chambers at Mrs. Doynes’s on Pennsylvania Avenue
any time of the morning before nine o’clock and at any time
after three o’clock.*| A weekly literary paper called the Hive, or
repository of literature, the first journal of the kind published
in Washington, was proposed by H. C. Lewis the last month
in 1810.5 A year later a similar publication was started under
the auspices of Joseph Milligen, a Georgetown bookseller.
His paper was monthly, and was called the Literary Visitor.
The rapidity with which newspapers appeared and then dis-
appeared is graphically shown by comparing the list given by
Isaiah Thomas in his History of Printing, of papers published in
Washington and Georgetown in 1810 with those named by
Warden a year later. According to Thomas the papers were the
Intelligencer, the Monitor and the Independent American, tri-
weeklies and the Spirit of Seventy-Six, semi-weekly and the
Universal Gazette, the weekly edition of the Intelligencer.
1 [ntelligencer, Aug. 4, 1809. 2 The same, Jan. 16,1810.
3 Federal Republican, Sept. 4, 1812.
4 Intelligencer, Aug. 3, 1811. Before coming to Washington about
the year 1804 Mr. Colvin was editor in the year 1800 of the Daily
Advertiser of Baltimore and three years later began the publication in
Hagerstown of the Republican Advocate, both Republican organs.
5 The same, Dec. 20, 1810. Warden, p. 84, describes it as having
eight quarto pages. ‘‘It contains selections from books and journals
and some original articles which are indeed original.”” The first number
was issued in April, 1811. Prospectus in Intelligencer, Jan. 24, 1811.
6 The same, April 29, 1813. Contents given for March, 1813, Vol.
2,No.1. Mr. Milligan began in January, 1811, the publication of a
quarterly entitled American Review of History and Politics. William
Cooper, who was associated with Dinmore in the issue of the Expositor,
had a book store in Washington.
590 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Warden notes that the Intelligencer and the weekly Hive were
the only papers published in Washington and the Spirit of
Seventy-Siz in Georgetown. He omits to mention the weekly
edition of the Intelligencer.
When Madison’s first term was nearly completed, and before
the dissatisfaction with “ Madison’s war,” which was declared
in the summer of 1812, had aroused to an unusual degree par-
tisan bitterness, announcement was made that the Federalist
party was again to be represented at the nation’s capital by a
newspaper organ. The middle of the first month of the year
1812 was fixed in the proposals issued by James A. Bayard, Jr.,
for beginning the publication of a tri-weekly that was to advo-
cate the policy of Washington.’ As far as known this announce-
ment is all that has been preserved of this newspaper venture.
The events of the succeeding six months, as they rapidly followed
each other, changed radically the situation. For near the close
of the session of congress which continued to the 6th of July,
1812, war was declared against England. In the first few months
it was Madison’s war, a war of the Republican party reflecting
French influence, and the Federal party was arrayed against it.
One of the organs of that party, the Federal Republican, a
weekly published in Baltimore, had so stirred partisan feeling
by its violent attacks on the policy of the administration that a
couple of weeks after war was declared the office of the paper
was attacked by a mob and destroyed. Nothing daunted, one
of the owners of the paper, Jacob Wagner, who after a long ser-
vice as chief clerk of the department of state had lost his office
under Madison, and the editor, Alexander C. Hanson, decided to
resume the publication of the paper. Accordingly a little more
than a month later the paper again appeared, but this time from
an office at M and 30th streets, Georgetown, “where the gov-
ernment could be made directly responsible in case of further vio-
lence.” ? The papers when printed were taken to Baltimore for
1 Intelligencer, Dec. 19, 1811.
? Adams’s History, Vol. 6, p. 409. Intelligencer, Aug. 1, 1812. ‘On
Monday [July 27] was resumed at Baltimore and Georgetown in the
District at one and the same time, the publication of a newspaper
called the Federal Republican, ete.”
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 591
distribution. Realizing there would be opposition a number of
the friends of the editor, all strong Federalists, under command
of the old revolutionary soldiers James M. Lingan and “Light
Horse Harry” Lee armed themselves and assembled in the house
of Wagner, from which the papers were distributed. The mob
again appeared, and in the rioting that took place Mr. Lingan
and others were killed and General Lee was severely injured.
On the day following the resumption of the publication a
call was issued for a meeting of Republicans of Washington dis-
posed to assist in the establishment of a newspaper “to inspire
energy, produce union and aid in support of the last and best
measures of the administration.”! As there is no further refer-
ence to this proposed enterprise it may be inferred that one
purpose at least was to discourage the publication of the anti-
Federal organ in the District. It was not merely in the Balti-
more affair that a veteran revolutionary soldier, who was highly
esteemed, had fallen a victim in defence of his principles, but
the action of the mob was branded as an assault upon the liberty
of the press. The affair assumed national proportions.?
Subscriptions poured into the Georgetown office from the
Federalists throughout the country, and what had been up to
that time an unprofitable financial venture began to prosper,
and in the course of about a year instead of a tri-weekly issue it
became a daily. No change was made in its policy or in its
language. The criticism of the administration was unwearied
and merciless. The editor also profited personally, as that fall
he was chosen to represent in congress the district in Maryland
including Montgomery and Frederick counties, succeeding
Philip Barton Key. At the close of his first term he took his
seat in the United States senate. Mr. Hanson’s residence was
in Rockville, Md., but when he entered the senate in 1816, he
removed the publication office of his paper from Georgetown to
Baltimore, where he also made his home.’
1 Intelligencer, July 28, 1812.
2 ‘Tn the north and the east the murder of Lingan shook the founda-
tions of society.”” Adams’s History, Vol. 6, p. 408.
3 The first issue in Baltimore was April 6, 1816. Jntelligencer, April 11,
592 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Partisan feeling was displayed in the District when the paper
first appeared. Rumors were circulated of an intention of the
men employed at the navy yard to destroy the office, which was
indignantly denied by the editor of the Intelligencer as well as
by the men themselves.!' The secretary of the navy, however,
for fear the scenes in Baltimore might be repeated, went to the
navy yard and spoke in favor of peace and good conduct.
The rumored attack was not made. The influence of the admin-
istration was exerted to prevent further scenes of violence.
The excited partisans calmed down and a bloodless contest of
words followed. The two factions in Georgetown held public
meetings and adopted resolutions.? But the Federalists did not
content themselves with adopting resolutions. They decided
upon paying funeral honors to the memory of Mr. Lingan, who
for many years was a citizen of Georgetown. The day fixed
upon was the first of September, more than a month after the
tragedy which had resulted in his death. A printed circular,
giving the proposed arrangements and the order of the proces-
sion, was issued. President Madison at once sent an order to
the army and navy officers, and through the secretary of war to
the commanding general of the District militia that it would
be improper for any of the corps under their command to take
part in a military capacity, “as it would be wanting in respect
to the laws before which the entire case now rests for enquiry and
decision.” * As the editor of the Intelligencer remarked in
commenting on the matter, a place had been assigned in this
procession for the survivors of the party who were in the house
when attacked by the mob, and the grand jury of Baltimore had
indicted these men for manslaughter while charging with murder
the members of the mob that later on made the murderous
attack on the jail where the besieged had been taken for safety.
1816, advertisement of J. C. Dunn, announcing the publication of the
Messenger, thus providing Georgetown with a newspaper after the
removal of the Federal Republican.
1 Intelligencer, Aug. 6, 1812.
The same, Aug. 18, 1812. Federal Republican, Aug. 12, 1812.
Reprinted from the Spirit of Seventy-Siz.
3 Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 1812.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 593
A place was‘also assigned in the procession for a hearse, but it
did not contain the body as that had been given to a relative
for secret burial.t
In the procession which started from the Union Tavern a
place was provided for the widow. Buton the morning of that
day some man whose party passion had gotten the best of his
humanity, carrying a bloody spear and wearing a military cap
inscribed Federal Republican, paraded before the hotel as a
reminder to the afflicted woman of the event which had de-
prived her of her husband. Mrs. Lingan was so overcome by
the memories which this spectacle recalled that she was obliged
to give up all thought of attending the services. Owing, it
was stated, to the large number who wished to pay this tribute
to the memory of the dead, it was decided to hold the services
in Parrott’s wood instead of in St. John’s Church. There the
Washington tent was erected and to the strains of a funeral
dirge and the booming of minute guns from a new ship in the
harbor owned by Washington Bowie, a Georgetown merchant,
and named the General Lingan, the march was made up the hill.
A troop of horse and a rifle company, both independent organ-
izations, and not subject to the orders of the militia commander,
were in line. ‘The oration was delivered by George Washington
Parke Custis, and the order of the day was carried out without
any further display of the intense public feeling that prevailed.”
For the Georgetown community as a whole was not in sympathy
with the opposition to the administration, as was clearly brought
out in the city election, for the Democrats were in cortrol of the
city council and the only reason the minority had any repre-
sentation at all was because the Democrats voted for two
1The interment was finally made in the grounds about the home
of the deceased on the Foxall Road, a short distance north of the Con-
duit Road. In 1903 a bronze marker was placed at the grave by the
Dolly Madison Chapter, D. A. R., and in 1908 the remains were trans-
ferred to the national cemetery at Arlington. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 13,
p. 47.
2 Oration by Mr. Custis of Arlington, ete. Washington, 1812, p. 5.
Francis Scott Key, ‘‘a Federal lawyer,’’ was asked to deliver the ora-
tion but declined. Federal Republican, Sept. 2 and 4, 1812.
VoL. I—2Q
594 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Federal candidates for the first chamber and four for the lower
in order “to promote harmony and not exclude the other side
entirely.”! The agitation had hardly died away when the
news was received from the remote frontier of northern Michi-
gan, so unexpected and so humiliating to American pride, of the
surrender at Detroit of General William Hull. The recruiting
for the army and the volunteering of the militia and their equip-
ment by the citizens, which had not enlisted a very general
response became more active. The military bustle as well as
the eagerness for news from the Canadian frontier led the editors
of the Intelligencer to decide to issue a daily paper, while con-
tinuing the tri-weekly edition.? Hardly a year had passed
since Washington had a daily newspaper when a prospectus
was issued announcing the purpose of giving to the city what it
never had before, a daily evening paper.* It was to be known
as the Washington City Gazette and was to be Republican in
politics. The publisher was William Elliot, later on surveyor
of the city; the printer, Jonathan Elliot ; and the editor, George
Watterston. The latter was the only literary man resident in
Washington now that Joel Barlow was no more.* The first
number appeared the first week in 1814.5 No file of this
period has been preserved, but it may be concluded that it was
continued up to the time of the invasion of the city, as an article
1 Intelligencer, March 3, 1814.
2The same, Nov. 17,1812. The first issue as announced was on the
ist of January, 1813. About the same time the Federal Republican
in Georgetown became a daily.
3 The same, Dee. 2, 1813.
4 Mr. Watterston was born in the harbor of New York, Oct. 23, 1783.
His father, David Watterston, a native of Jedburgh, Scotland, had just
arrived in this country. He removed to Washington, where he was
employed on the capitol building. His son witnessed the laying of
the corner-stone of that edifice in 1793. George Watterston studied
law and formed a partnership with Thomas Law.
His taste inclined to letters rather than to law, and he wrote much,
but did not display talents of a high order. History of Library of
Congress, Vol. 1, p. 108.
5 Intelligencer, Jan. 4, 1814. According to this announcement the first
issue was January 5. Also announcement of the second issue in the
Intelligencer, January 6.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 595
from its columns was reprinted in a Philadelphia paper referring
to an event of August 22.1. It is probable before this date, the
paper was changed to a weekly, as when it was revived nearly
two years later, Jonathan Elliot, who was then the publisher
and editor, informed the public that “the Washington Weekly
Gazette will be resumed.’”’? Several months before the daily
Washington City Gazette appeared, its publisher had formed a
partnership with Daniel Rapine to do a printing business on
Capitol Hill.* It may be concluded the new newspaper venture
was published in that section of the city. Mr. Rapine had just
completed a term as mayor of the city, the first to serve under
the city charter of 1812, which changed the office from a presi-
dential appointment to an elective office by the city council.
For seven years Mr. Rapine had been alone in the management
of the book selling and stationery business at the northeast
corner of New Jersey Avenue and B Street, S. E., which he and
his partners established the year the government was removed
to the new city. Six years later his partners Michael and John
Conrad, Philadelphia booksellers, withdrew from the business.*
When the publication of the Gazette was resumed as a weekly,
the office was on Pennsylvania Avenue between 43 and 6th
streets, where Mr. Rapine gave notice he had removed his
stationery store.® He was a near neighbor of Roger C.
Weightman who had bought out the book and stationery store
of William Duane at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania
Avenue and 6th Street.
A few weeks prior to the notice of the publication of an evening
paper the public was informed by Ebenezer H. Cummins that
he proposed to publish a tri-weekly newspaper which would be
devoted exclusively to reporting the proceedings of the senate.®
1Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser, Aug. 26, 1814.
2 Intelligencer, Nov. 7, 1815. In the library of congress the file is
Noy. 25, 1815, to Oct. 18, 1817.
3 The same, July 13, 1813. 4The same, Feb. 5, 1806.
5 The same Nov. 1, 1814. In the course of a year the business was
again on Capitol Hill, on East Capitol Street between Ist and 2d streets.
Same, Dec. 11, 1815.
§ The same, Nov. 25, 1813.
596 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
The publication was begun at the opening of the session of con-
gress the following month, and was continued apparently through
that session, which ended in April, 1814.1. How faithfully the
editor confined himself to the special line he had laid down, is
indicated by a notice to newspaper publishers that he could not
exchange papers “as he has no use for the material in their
columns.”? Another special publication which has the distinc-
tion of being the first agricultural journal published in this
country was the Agricultural Museum, a bi-monthly. The
initial number appeared from the printing office of W. A. Rind
in Georgetown, July 4, 1810. As the files show, it was well
edited, and entirely devoted to an intelligent treatment of the
subject. The editor, David Wiley, had been educated as a
minister and had come to Georgetown ten years previously
and had taken charge of the Columbian Academy. A year
after the Musewm appeared, he was elected mayor of George-
town.? He was also secretary of the Columbian Agricultural
Society, organized for the purpose of encouraging agriculture and
domestic manufactures. The first exhibition under the aus-
pices of the society had been held in May, 1810, and the next the
following fall. Union Tavern was the scene of this gathering
of farmers and manufacturers, where the exhibits were examined
and the premiums awarded. The latter were provided from
the annual dues of $10 paid by the one hundred and thirty
members.
So successful were these events that in the second year the
May exhibition took place in “the pleasant grove the property
of Thomas Beall of George, Esq., adjoining Mr. Parrott’s rope
walk.” 4
How long the agricultural society and its newspaper organ
1 Intelligencer, March 1, 1814. 2 The same.
’The mayors of Georgetown for the period 1797 to 1818 were as
follows: Lloyd Beall, 1798-1802; Daniel Reintzell, 1803-1807;
Thomas Corcoran, 1808-1810; David Wiley, 1811; Thomas Corcoran,
1812; John Peter, 1813-1818.
4 Agricultural Museum, May 22, 1811. Intelligencer, May 14, 1811.
‘“The woods at the head of Washington Street,’’ or 30th Street of
to-day, still remain within the enclosure of Oak Hill Cemetery, while the
site of the rope walk to the west is now a public park.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 597
continued their useful work is not known,! but it seems probable
these exhibitions suffered the fate of many of the activities of a
peaceful society in the wave of war that overspread the country.
The agricultural society was not the only agency that was
striving to improve the condition of the farmer in this locality.
Since the spring of 1803, soon after George Washington Parke
Custis, the grandson of Mrs. George Washington, established his
home at Arlington which he inherited from his father, and began
the erection of the house with its pillared porch that still adorns
the brow of the hill overlooking the Potomac from the Virginia
shore, the Arlington Sheep Shearing, as the annual convention
for the promotion of agriculture and domestic manufactures was
called, became an occasion of interest each recurring spring.
The distribution of prizes, the gift of Mr. Custis, took place in
the tent used by Washington during the revolutionary war, and
there also a dinner was served by the generous host.?
Mr. Custis’ enthusiasm as to the possibilities of improvement
in the use of land led him to publish an address in pamphlet
form on this subject to the people of the United States.2 The
previous year a pamphlet had come from the District press on a
special horticuiturai subject relating to the use of the young
thorn and other hedge plants.4. The author, Thomas Main, had
a nursery near the Little Falls.®
1The last date of the file of {the Agricultural Museum in the library
of congress is May, 1812. In the issue of the Intelligencer of Nov. 12,
1812, is a notice of the autumnal exhibition of the society for that
year.
2 Oration by Mr. Custis of Arlington with an account of the funeral
solemnities in honor of the lamented General James M. Lingan, p. 34.
Washington, 1812.
3 Alexandria, S. Snowden, 1808.
4The title was Directions for the transplantation and management
of young thorn, ete. Thomas Main, Washington, A. and G. Way,
1807. Advertisement by the executor of the estate of Mr. Main in
issue of Feb. 15, 1814, offering the plants and seeds at the nursery for
sale.
5 Intelligencer, Nov. 14, 1804. In the issue of Feb. 27, 1805, appears
the advertisement of two gardeners or horticulturists, as they would be
termed to-day. One of these, Theodore Holt, had a place on the
Eastern Branch, while Thomas McGrath was located on Uriah For-
rest’s farm in the vicinity of Wisconsin Avenue and Massachusetts
598 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Within the city up to the year 1807 David Hepburn, a gar-
dener, occupied a portion of the square bounded by 6th, 7th and
B streets and Maryland Avenue, S. W.!_ The record of the rise
and decline in the newspaper publishing business in the city
finds a further illustration in the history of the printers’ trade
organization which was designed primarily to raise and estab-
lish prices. A year after the initial supply of newspapers at the
new political centre had been made in such generous fashion,
appeared a call for a meeting of “the journeymen printers of
the District of Columbia.” The heading of the notice read
“Franklin or Asylum association.” ? This was the name of an
association or company in Philadelphia that preceded the
Philadelphia Typographical Society, organized in November,
1802.2 As a typographical society had been organized in New
York as early as 1795, the Philadelphia organization stands
second in point of time, and the Washington society is the third.
How long it continued in existence, it is impossible to say, as
there is no further reference to the subject for thirteen years,
when a notice appeared calling a meeting of the printers of the
District “friendly to the organization of a society on principles
corresponding to the Philadelphia Typographical Society.”
In a few weeks the Columbia Typographical Society was organ-
ized,‘ so that the year 1815 is given usually as the beginning
of organized effort on the part of printers of the District by those
who overlook or are not aware of the earlier organization and of
the importance of Washington in the opening years of the nine-
teenth century as a centre of the printing trade.
A year before the printers formed this second association the
Avenue. The latter offered shade trees and flowers for sale, and stated
he had poplar trees for sale at 12 cents each. In the issue of Dec. 10,
1814, is an advertisement by Isaac Peirce, offering for sale 20,000 en-
grafted apple trees ‘‘at his nursery three miles from Georgetown on
Rock Creek.”? The house built of stone where Mr. Peirce lived is now
in Rock Creek Park, on the west side of the creek between Klingle Road
and Pierce Mill Road.
1 Intelligencer, Jan. 10, 1807. 2 The same, Nov. 2, 1801.
’The Printers. George E. Barnett. American Economic Associa-
tion. 3d Series, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1909.
4 Intelligencer, Dec. 3 and Jan. 12, 1815.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 599
bricklayers organized an association “to establish uniform mode
of measurement and prices.”! It is evident an advance of
wages was contemplated, as a few days later the writer of a
communication in the Intelligencer? suggested that such a
course might not be wise at this time, for he adds, “Is it not well
known to all of us that the prices of the latter (the bricklayers)
have already been much complained of here, and that whole
corps of mechanics who have ascertained the prices of work in
this place are ready in one or two of our large towns to pour
in among us upon slight invitation and encouragement ?”’
There is no record of what this pioneer labor organization
accomplished, but it is evident that conditions had materially
changed since the period of the city commissioners and their
rather autocratic method of dealing with labor questions. In
another particular of associated effort on the part of citizens
the course of development of the community may be traced in
the growth of church organizations. For the first five or six
years of Washington as the national capital, but few changes
in the material condition of the churches occurred, and no ad-
ditions were made to the number. In fact, the active existence
of one church, St. Andrews Presbyterian, in the vicinity of 10th
and F streets, N. W., had come to an end. Services under
the auspices of the Associated Reformed Church, a branch of the
Scotch Presbyterian church that used in singing exclusively the
psalms of David, were held each Sabbath in the corridor of the
treasury building for a period of seven years. About the close
of the second year, the congregation felt justified in having a
pastor, instead of depending upon the services of ministers who
happened to be available. In the spring of 1803 Rev. James
Laurie, a Scotchman twenty five years of age, a graduate of the
University of Edinburgh who had just arrived in this country,
accepted a call. The congregation, which was described by
1 Intelligencer, Feb. 22, 1814. The committee appointed to draw up
rules and regulations was composed as follows: William Diggs, Am-
brose White, John Queen, George Craig and James Bennett.
2 Feb. 26, 1814.
3The call was signed by Joseph Nourse, and William Brown,
ruling elders, William Mackey, Melchior Steiner, John McGowan,
600 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Rev. Manasseh Cutler some eight months after Mr. Laurie had
become the pastor “as small but attentive and serious,’’* was
evidently unable to provide for the entire support of a minister,
as Mr. Laurie secured a position in the treasury office. An
earnest effort was made to have a church building, and in behalf
of this object Mr. Laurie travelled throughout the country
soliciting funds, the first appeal of the sort for Washington as a
national centre. By the year 1807 a small church building of
brick was erected on the south side of F Street, a short distance
west of 14th Street, on a portion of the site now occupied by 1414
F Street, and in the middle of July it was occupied for the first
time.2. The original church building was small, and was without
the extension to the street front and the pillared porch of latter
days, but it was notable as the second church edifice in the city
made of more enduring material than wood, as it may be in-
ferred that the Baptist Church erected in 1803 was of brick.
The church, however, had a struggling career, and its continued
existence at times seemed doubtful. By the year 1819 twenty-
one families were connected with it and the entire membership
was sixty-one. A year after Mr. Laurie had been installed, and
while St. Andrews Church that was affiliated with the Presbyte-
rian Church in this country had apparently died, an attempt was
made to ascertain what support would be given to a Presbyterian
Church on Capitol Hill. Beyond the call for a meeting to be
held at Stelle’s Tavern * there is no record that anything further
was done at that time, or in fact until the spring of 1809, when a
petition was received by the Presbytery of Baltimore from
Presbyterians about the navy yard, asking for the services of a
Presbyterian minister. During the preceding summer, as the
Michael Nourse, Samuel Collingwood, Lewis Clephane, George Mitch-
ell, George Kennedy, Alexander McDonald and Alexander Mackey,
members of the church and others who were not members. From a
history of the church in the manuscript records of the session under
date of April 22, 1824.
1 Life, Vol. 2.
2 Intelligencer, July 15,1807. Notice of the opening of the church and
that the pews remaining undisposed of will be rented.
3 Records of the Session.
4 Intelligencer, May 30, 1804.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 601
record shows, ministers had officiated at this station. Rev.
John Brackinridge, the first and only pastor of St. Andrews
Church, was sent as a missionary, and by the fall of 1811 the
intention was announced of calling him as pastor. The new
congregation purchased lot 13, Square 636, at the southwest
corner of South Capitol and B streets, S. W., and by June, 1812,
a church building of frame was erected on that site and public
notice was given of “the distribution of pews in the First
Presbyterian Church.”! In this particular the general custom
of the locality was followed. A different plan was adopted
by the vestry of Christ Church. The pews were sold, the pur-
chaser holding his pew in fee, transferable at his pleasure, but
subject to such yearly rents as might be determined upon from
time to time by the vestry.?. It was at a meeting held in the
First Presbyterian Church that the Bible Society of the District
of Columbia was organized on the 17th day of January, 1813, by
representatives of different religious denominations.*
The earliest mention of Washington in the minutes of the
Methodist conference was in the year 1802, when it is given in
the list of appointments in connection with Georgetown. The
minister in charge of the two stations preached in Washington
one Sabbath in three, returning to Georgetown for the night
preaching.’ The first known place of Methodist preaching in
1 [ntelligencer, June 23, 1812. Rev. John Brackinridge was installed
as pastor on Sabbath, July 4, 1813. See also Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol.8, p. 43.
2 Intelligencer, Aug. 19, 1807.
’ The same, Jan. 25, 1814. Also first report of the Bible Society of
the District of Columbia (Washington), 1816. The managers were Rev.
James Muir, D.D., of Alexandria, president; Rev. James Laurie, D.D.,
and Rev. Walter D. Addison, vice-presidents; Rev. Stephen B. Balch
and Rev. William H. Wilmer, corresponding secretaries; Thomas
Vowell, treasurer; Elias B. Caldwell, recording secretary; Revs.
Andrew Hunter, John Chalmers, Obadiah B. Brown, Henry Foxall,
and Oliver Norris; John McGowan, John Coyle, John Laird, Francis
S. Key, Robert Munro, John McDaniel, Bushrod Washington, Jacob
Hoffman and Dr. George A. Thornton.
4 The Washington society was represented on the official board of the
Georgetown Church by Joseph Wheat, Peter Miller, John Chalmers,
George Collard and James Fry.
5 “The friends at the Point agree to pay one third of his salary and
one fourth of his boarding, making in all $68.” Resolution adopted
602 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Washington was one of the Twenty Buildings at South Capitol
and N streets. When in the summer of 1807 the congregation
of Washington parish gave up the old tobacco warehouse on
New Jersey Avenue, south of D Street, which had been used for
church purposes since the formation of the parish in 1795, and
took possession of the new church edifice which had just been
erected on G Street between 6th and 7th streets, S. E.,! the
Methodist congregation removed to the vacated building. At
that time the membership was 102.2 In the course of three years
a lot was purchased from William Prout on the east side of 4th
Street, between Potomac, formerly Georgia Avenue, and G
Street, S. E A church building of small dimensions and of
brick was erected on this lot and dedicated in November, 1811.
At this period the membership had risen to 159. The interior
of the building was not completed for some years. There were
no pews, and benches, chairs and stools were brought to the
church by the worshippers. As was the custom in the early
days of Methodism, a partition four feet high ran down the
centre of the auditorium, one side being reserved for the men
and the other for the women.
In the same general locality as early as 1801 ground was
acquired on the east side of South Capitol Street, between N and
O streets, for the purpose of erecting there a Catholic Church,
and it was probably this site Father Grassi, Superior of the
Jesuits in Maryland, had in mind when he wrote in 1818,
by the trustees and official members, April 7, 1803. Centennial
sketch of Methodism in Georgetown, p. 24. Washington, 1884.
1 In proposals for building a Protestant Episcopal Church on Square
877, signed by Henry Ingle, register, Intelligencer, May 28, 1806, the
building is described to be of brick ‘‘38 x 45 feet in the clear and two
stories high.”” Same, Aug. 5, 1807. Rev. A. T. McCormick will com-
mence holding divine service on Sunday, the 9th inst., ‘‘in the new
church near the Navy Yard.’”’ It then was given the name of Christ
Church.
? History of the Church. Rev. W. M. Ferguson. Evening Star,
Feb. 13, 1892.
3The members of the board of trustees at this time were Henry
Foxall, John Brashears, Electius Middleton, Ambrose White, James
Vanganette, John A. Chambers, Leonard Mackall, John Eliason and
Jacob Hoffman.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 603
describing church conditions in Washington, “some years ago
the foundations for a cathedral were laid, but the building
had to be suspended for want of funds.’’! Five years later the
corner-stone of St. Mary’s Catholic Church, sometimes known
as Barry’s Chapel, was laid. Both the ground and the building
were the gift of James Barry, who was actively engaged in com-
mercial enterprises in that part of the city, and the beauty of
whose daughter aroused the enthusiastic admiration of Augus-
tus Foster, the young secretary of the English legation.2 The
chapel building was located on the west side of } Street, be-
tween O and P streets, S. E., and was standing as late as the
year 1819.3
A year before the Methodists took possession of the old
tobacco house, the society in Georgetown enlarged the brick
church building which had been erected on the lot on the east
side of 28th Street between M and Olive streets. The original
building was 30 X 40 feet, and in the year 1806 it was lengthened
to sixty feet, and was made two stories high. Three years pre-
viously the need of church privileges for those of the Epis-
copal faith, somewhat more convenient than found at such a
distance from Georgetown as the church of Washington parish
and of Rock Creek Church, became so urgent that the Epis-
copalians of Georgetown were called together at Semmes Tavern
and a committee was appointed to solicit funds for completing
the partially built church structure at the southeast corner of
O and Potomac streets. It is apparent that contributions were
sought to some extent outside of the District by written appeals.
1 Memorial of St. Patrick’s Church (1904), pp. 10 and 15.
2The Two Duchesses, p. 198.
3 Intelligencer, May 8, 1819. In Pictures of the City of Wash-
ington, S. C. Busey, p. 140, is given the inscription on the corner-stone
which is preserved in St. Dominie’s Church. An account of a romance
in connection with this chapel may be found in the Washington Sketch
Book, p. 207.
4 Centennial Sketch of Methodism in Georgetown. Washington,
1884.
5 A sermon giving a historical account of St. John’s Church, George-
town, by Rev. C. M Butler, Washington, 1844. The committee was
Walter S. Chandler, Charles Worthington and Walter Smith.
604 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
At any rate, before the year had closed the building was in condi-
tion to be used. In the following spring Rev. John J. Sayrs
of Port Tobacco parish was chosen rector by the pewholders.
In the year 1806 the church building was completely finished."
Upon the death of the rector in 1809, Rev. Walter D. Addison,
who had been active in the first period of the church, was called
to the rectorship. In that year Georgetown Parish was created
out of the Washington Parish, and the church was consecrated.”
The Baptist congregation, which had a church building at the
southwest corner of 19th and I streets, N. W., since the year
1803 shared in the general improvement which may be noted
in the material condition of the churches in the years 1806-1807,
and for the first time in its existence since the spring of 1802
called a pastor. Rev. Obadiah B. Brown of New Jersey was
the choice of the congregation that then numbered twenty-
three souls. He entered upon his duties as pastor Feb. 21,
1807. He also, like Dr. Laurie and Rev. Mr. McCormick,
Rector of Christ Church, held a clerkship in the government
service.®
Two years after Mr. Brown began his services, the church
was supplied for the first time with pews which were at once
offered for rent.*
Nearly three years after the commencement of the pastoral
services of Mr. Brown the Second or Navy Yard Church
was constituted, with five members.® The church came into
1 The trustees in 1804 were William H. Dorsey, Charles Worthing-
ton, Thomas Corcoran, Walter S. Chandler and Walter Smith.
2 Historical Sermon by Rey. Charles E. Buck. Washington, 1896.
’ History of Baptist Institutions of Washington City, p. 7. Wash-
ington, 1867.
4 Intelligencer, July 7, 1809. Theissue of March 22, 1814, contains a
notice signed by O. B. Brown, president, and Eno Reynolds, corre-
sponding secretary of the Washington Baptist Society for foreign mis-
sions, urging the formation of societies and the sending of delegates to
Philadelphia “‘where a general committee is to be formed to unite the
counsels, contributions and energies of all the societies.”” At that time
the General Convention of Baptists for foreign missions was organized.
5 Bartleson Fox, Clement Boswell, Harvey Bestor, Joseph Borrows
and Sarah Borrows. History of the Baptist Institutions of Wash-
ington City, p. 11.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 605
existence on the 3d of June, 1810, and for the first few months
services were held in the schoolroom of John McLeod on the
west side of 8th Street, a short distance north of I Street, and
opposite the Marine barracks. By September, 1810, a small
frame building had been erected near the corner of 4th and
G streets, S. E., which was occupied by the congregation. A
year later the attendance at a communion numbered twenty-
three, which indicates the slow growth, and further explains the
failure to have aregular pastor. It was not until nine years after
the church was organized that the services of a pastor were secured.
The pulpit was occupied by ministers who happened to be avail-
able. In the year 1814, Spencer H. Cone, whose course at
Princeton College had been brought to an end by his father’s
failing health and who had become a teacher and then an actor
and finally the publisher of the Baltimore Whig, was again
thrown on his own resources by the failure of his newspaper
enterprise. He had in that year been converted and immersed.
He secured a clerkship in the treasury office, and upon his
removal to Washington began to conduct services in the Second
Baptist Church. He developed attractive powers as a public
speaker, and it being known that a converted actor was preach-
ing the gospel, many people were drawn to the little church.
He was soon licensed to preach. He was elected chaplain of
the house in 1815, succeeding the Rev. O. B. Brown. After
a service of about a year with the Washington Church he ac-
cepted a call as pastor of the Baptist Church in Alexandria."
The frame building on the north side of F Street, between 9th
and 10th streets, which had served the purposes of St. Patrick’s
Catholic Church for some thirteen years had become inade-
quate, and in the latter part of June, 1809, a new building was
dedicated, Archbishop John Carroll officiating.” The new
structure of brick was continued in use for a good many years
and stood nearer 9th Street than 10th Street.
It will be noted that the period of 1801-1813 in the case of
the churches was one of development and expansion. For at
1 American Pulpit, Baptist. W. B. Sprague, p. 642.
2 Intelligencer, June 30, 1809.
606 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the beginning there were three church organizations, only one
of which owned the building which it occupied, while twelve
years later there were seven churches and a chapel, all of which
owned the buildings which were used for the services. While
in most instances the congregations were small in numbers and
limited in resources, yet on the whole the church expansion
reflected the growth of the community as well as its material
condition. With but a single exception during this period no
new denomination entered the field. In the year 1808 a Society
of Friends purchased two lots on the north side of I Street be-
tween 18th and 19th streets! A meeting-house was erected,
and there in June was witnessed “the first marriage solemnized
by that society in the city of Washington.’’? Some four years
previously Rev. Mr. Hargrove, minister of the New Jerusalem
Church, delivered a discourse at the capitol,’ and after this
first mention of the presentation of the doctrines of the followers
of Swedenborg, a number of years elapsed before there is any
further record made of their activities in this city.
At the same time the speaker’s desk in the hall of the house
of representatives Sunday after Sunday was a forum from which
was presented a wide range of religious belief. The chaplains
of congress officiated there, as did also ministers representing
various denominations. Frequently the religious atmosphere
was lacking, sometimes due to the audience turning the occa-
sion into a social function and then again to the eccentric char-
acter and views of the preachers. Rev. Manasseh Cutler
was not pleased with the discourse of Rev. John Leland, who
arrived in the city January, 1802, with the mammoth cheese
which was presented to President Jefferson. On the following
day he officiated at the capitol. The president was in the
congregation, as it was his custom to be in the early years of his
administration. It was apparently a new feature of the capitol
services when in February, 1805, the Marine Band was sta-
1 The deed was dated Feb. 27, 1808, Lib. T, fol. 349, and transferred
the lots still used for that purpose to trustees of the society as follows:
William Morgan, Isaac Briggs, Gerard Brooke, Samuel Lukens, and
Samuel Snowden.
2 Intelligencer, June 3, 1808. 8 The same, Dec. 24, 1804.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 607
tioned in the gallery and “after the preaching . . . the marines
. . . played Denmark. Were there next Sunday. Two pieces
of psalmody by the band of the marine corps. They attended
in their uniforms about eighty or one hundred.’’! The fol-
lowing fall the Constitution arrived from the Mediterranean,
having on board the members “of the elegant, Italian band.” 2
These musicians became a part of the band of the marine corps
in Washington, and their descendants have been ever since iden-
tified with that organization.
The early custom of graveyards about the church building
found examples in the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches
in Georgetown and in St. Patrick’s Church in Washington.
Family graveyards in the vicinity of the houses were not
uncommon, but the modern usage, which requires these rest-
ing places of the dead to be some distance from the built-up
portions of the town, finds an early counterpart in the provision
in the deed executed in 1800 transferring the title of the site for
the Methodist Church of Georgetown, that no interments should
be made in the ground thus conveyed. The yard about the
Presbyterian Church continued for some years after this time
to be used for such purposes. The first death in the new city
of a member of congress occurred March 11, 1802, when Nais-
worthy Hunier, a delegate from the territory of Mississippi,
passed away. The members of the two houses of congress,
their officers and the heads of departments walked in procession
from the house where he died, one of the Six Buildings at
Pennsylvania Avenue and 21st Street, to Georgetown, “where
he was buried in the yard by Mr. Balch’s meeting-house.”’ #
On the occasion of Representative Daniel Heister’s death two
years later both houses of congress adjourned to attend the
funeral, which was held at Lovell’s Hotel on Pennsylvania
Avenue near 15th Street, where he died. Biscuits and wine
were served at the hotel for the refreshment of the members of
congress who attended, and this expense, as well as the crape
bands which each member wore for a month and all other
1 Life of Manasseh Cutler, Vol. 2, p. 183.
2 Intelligencer, Sept. 25, 1805. 3 Cutler’s Life, Vol. 2, p. 104.
608 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
items connected with the funeral were paid from the contingent
fund of the house, of which the deceased had been a member.
On this occasion the members of the two houses walked in pro-
cession “from Lovell’s Hotel round the President’s Square,” and
from that point the body was taken on through Georgetown to
Hagerstown, where the deceased had lived.’ A year later, ac-
cording to the same authority, on a similar occasion, the members
of the two houses instead of walking rode in carriages from the
capitol to the late residence and thence to the grave. At the
house wine, spirits and biscuit were provided as a part of the
cost of the funeral, all of which was paid from the public funds.
The following year, when James Gillespie of North Carolina,
member of the house, died, the interment was made in the new
burying ground in Georgetown.”
This was the Presbyterian cemetery which had been acquired
in part in 1802 and eventually included the whole of the southern
portion of the square on the north side of Volta Street, between
33d and 34th streets.2 It is apparent that burials in the church
yard ceased when the new cemetery came into use. It was
not until the year 1810 that the authorities of St. Patrick’s
church found it necessary to make other provision for inter-
ment than the space about the church building. In that year
ground was acquired north of Florida Avenue between Ist and
2d streets, N. W., where the dead of the parish were laid away.
The city burying grounds, squares 109 and 1026, which had
been set aside from the government holdings two years before
Washington became the national capitol, were under the con-
trol of the city council.4 It was not until the year 1807 that
1Cutler’s Life, Vol. 2, p. 169, March 8, 1804.
2 The same, Jan. 11, 1805.
* Lib. H, fol. 560. Sept. 28, 1802. Charles Beatty to Stephen B.
Balch, Thomas Corcoran, George Thompson, William Whann, James
Melvin, John Crookshank, James Calder, Christian Kurtz, John Peter,
David English and Henry Knowles in trust for the use of the Presby-
terian church of Georgetown. The property now belongs to the Dis-
trict and is used as a public play ground.
‘Square 109 was bounded by 19th, 20th and S streets, and Florida
Avenue, N. W., known for many years as Holmead Cemetery. Square
1026 was bounded by H, I and 15th streets and Florida Avenue, N. E.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 609
any attempt was made to give them proper care. At that
time an appropriation was made for putting up post and rail
fences, sextons were appointed and it was directed that plots
be made.! Interments had been made in both places prior
to this time, but owing to the fact that the eastern burying
ground was in “a low and watery situation and very unfit for a
place of interment,”’ ? a few persons, on April 4, 1807, purchased
square No. 1115, between E and G, 18th and 19th streets,
S. E., for a cemetery. It was agreed by the purchasers that
when the property became free of debt it should be transferred
to the vestry of Washington parish.2 The cemetery continued
under the management of the trustees for five years, and then,
the condition of the terms of the purchase having been complied
with, the property was transferred to the vestry of Washington
parish. As soon as this new burial place had been secured,
members of congress dying in Washington were interred there.
The first burial of a public man in the new cemetery was on
the occasion of the death of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecti-
cut in July, 1807.
There was no amusement more popular than horse racing,
and Washington from an early period was a centre of such sport,
due no doubt to the interest taken in the breeding of racing
stock by John Tayloe, reputed to be the wealthiest man in
the city, and one of whose farms, Petworth, was bounded on the
south by Rock Creek Church Road and on the west by Georgia
Avenue. He was said in 1803 to have received as bigh as $3500
for one of his winning horses. In that year the races were held
on the grounds of the Washington Jockey Club, “about four
miles from Capitol Hill.” ° It is evident the first race track,
1 Intelligencer, April 10 and Sept. 11, 1807.
2 History of the Congressional Cemetery. 59th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Senate Doc., No. 72, 1906.
3 Among the purchasers were Henry Ingle, George Blagden, Griffith
Coombe, S. N. Smallwood, Dr. Frederick May, Peter Miller, John T.
Frost and Captain Thomas Tingey.
‘Henry Ingle to the vestry of Washington parish, Lib. A, C;
fol. 245. March 30, 1812.
5 Dr. Mitchell’s Letters. Harper’s. April, 1879.
vVOL.I—2R
610 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
between 17th and 20th streets, and extending across Pennsyl-
vania Avenue into Lafayette Park, had been given up. It seems
probable the new track was where it remained for a good many
years, south of Columbia Road between 14th and 16th streets.
The racing began each year in November on Tuesday and
ended on Saturday and some years lasted only three days with
a race ball at one of the taverns. The spectators in November,
1803, when Rey. Mr. Cutler attended, as he noted in his journal,
were between “three and four thousand, black, white, and
yellow ; of all conditions from the President of the United States
to the beggar in his rags, of all ages and of both sexes, for I
should judge one-third were females. . . . It was said the toll
collected from the carriages and horses (people on foot passed
free) was $1200.”
Both houses of congress adjourned, the senate for three
days, but, observes Dr. Mitchell, “not on account of the races
but merely to admit a mason to plaster the ceiling of their
chamber, which had fallen down a few days before.”’ He adds
“the House of Representatives met and adjourned, but you
must not suppose this was done to allow the honorable gentle-
men to show themselves on the horse ground, you are rather
to imagine that no business was in due state of preparation to
be acted upon.”
Both Rev. Mr. Cutler and John Quincy Adams, who were
from New England, where horse racing was unknown, record
in their memoirs that they gratified their curiosity by being
present. The carriage people, so Mr. Cutler states, were
ranged in lines on the outside of the circular track, which
was fifty feet wide and one mile in extent. Within the circle
was a cluster of wooden refreshment booths having flat roofs
from which the people viewed the races. Those on horseback
followed the contestants along the course.! The sport was
not abandoned when the country became involved in war. In
the course of a couple of months after war had been declared
and congress had appointed a day of humiliation and prayer,
the usual fall meeting of the Washington Jockey Club was
1 Cutler’s Life, Vol. 2, p. 142.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 611
held.t_ During this period the citizens of Washington, in common
with their fellow-citizens throughout, especially the southern
section of the country, where the war was more popular, were
enrolling themselves in companies and offering their services to
the government in response to the president’s call.2 A re-
newed interest was manifested in the militia. The celebration
of the Fourth of July brought out in the procession that moved
from the president’s house to the capitol, where Richard Rush
delivered an oration, five hundred soldiers of the first legion,
“principally in uniform and all well armed, exhibiting a martial
appearance.” ? In addition four independent companies were
in line.
The spirit of the militia was different in this section from that
in New England, where the governors claimed the right to deter-
mine on the need of calling out the troops and refused to have
them placed under the command of officers of the regular army
in case troops were furnished. It was resolved at a meeting
of citizens of Washington of forty-five years and upwards to
form a company and tender its services to the president.*
An order was issued from militia headquarters to enrol every
man subject to military duty except such as have joined volun-
teer companies.° At a public meeting in Alexandria $2000
was raised for the purpose of equipping a volunteer company,®
and by the first of the following month a company of sixty men
had been accepted by the president. Then Washington was
remote from the seat of war. The Canadian border was a long
1 Tntelligencer, Nov. 3, 1812. The following fall, when the city was
recovering from the terror caused by the coming up the river of the
British fleet, the usual announcement of the Jockey Club races ap-
peared. Intelligencer, Oct. 26,1813. In the issue of Nov. 16, 1813, notice
was given that a race would be run near the end of the Eastern Branch
bridge at the foot of 14th Street, E. Two months after the destructive
visit of the British, the usual three-day racing meet was held on the
Washington course. Federal Republican, Oct. 31, 1814.
2 Intelligencer, Sept. 29, 1812.
3The same, July 8, 1812. Mr. Rush was at that time controller
of the treasury. Two years later he was attorney-general.
4 The same, Aug. 8, 1812.
5 The same, Sept. 8, 1812. 6 The same, Sept. 10, 1812.
612 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
distance off, and to that frontier the hostilities were still con-
fined when James Madison for the second time took the oath
of office as president of the United States. The program of
four years before was carried out with but few changes. The
president was escorted from his official residence, along Pennsyl-
vania Avenue to the capitol by the cavalry of the District,
and upon his arrival passed through the ranks of the volunteer
companies of Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria. In
the radiance of the brilliant sunlight the appearance of the
military array was pronounced to be animating.’ The cere-
monies were again held in the chamber of the house, and after
the president elect had delivered his inaugural, the oath of
office was administered by Chief Justice Marshall in the pres-
ence of the members of congress, the justices of the Supreme
Court, the foreign ministers and many citizens. Again for the
second time the ceremonies of the day were brought to a close
by a ball which was held in Davis Hotel on Pennsylvania
Avenue near 6th Street, N. W.
In the course of a few weeks the war was brought to the very
doors of the people of the District. Then an English fleet under
the command of Admiral Warren and Rear Admiral Cockburn
began a blockade of Chesapeake and Delaware bays. The
entire section of country from Richmond to Philadelphia was
thrown into a panic of alarm and apprehension, which was in-
creased when, in May, Admiral Cockburn ascended Chesapeake
Bay, burning and pillaging Havre de Grace, Georgetown’ (Mary-
land) and other places. By that time the District militia had
been reorganized, but in addition a mass meeting of citizens
was held, as was done in Philadelphia at this time, and a com-
mittee was appointed to codperate with the general government
in measures for the defence of the city.2 At that period, as
proved to be the case later, the advisers of the president did
not believe the city was in danger. As Mrs. Madison wrote
in a personal letter on May 12, 1813, “and now if I could de-
scribe the fears and alarms that circulate around us. For the
last week all the city and Georgetown (except the cabinet)
1 Intelligencer, March 6, 1813. 2 The same, May 11, 1813.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 613
have expected a visit from the enemy and were not lacking in
their expressions of terror and reproach.” }
Orders, however, were given to repair Fort Washington,
showing that this sole defence of the city, erected some four
years previously, had not been maintained. Mrs. Madison’s
eyes were gladdened in looking out of the windows of the presi-
dent’s house to see the tents of the militia on the hill where
in later years the Naval Observatory was built. For, as she
shrewdly observes, “The twenty tents look well in my eyes,
who has always been an advocate for fighting when assailed,
though a Quaker.” Mrs. Madison at the same time stated
that it is rumored the enemy intends to come to the city to
burn the president’s house and the executive offices. She adds
“T do not tremble at this, but feel hurt that the admiral (of
Havre de Grace memory) should send me word that he would
make his bow at my drawing-room very soon.” ? More than
a year elapsed before this prediction, and then only in part,
came true; but this early notice, if it had been taken seriously
by the military authorities, and politics and personal ambition
as well as the meagreness of the public resources had not in-
terfered, would have made the execution of the threat more
difficult or probably would have prevented the attempt. How-
ever, military companies were enrolled in the District and a
force numbering 400 was enlisted in the service of the govern-
ment. They were placed under the command of Colonel Carbery
of the regular army and went into camp as stated by Mrs.
Adams.’ A squadron of cavalry under command of Colonel
Tayloe was stationed near the Washington bridge, but in a few
days, and in accordance with the economical policy of that
time, was released from further service with the commenda-
tion of Colonel Carbery for its good corduct.t In the course
of six weeks after attacking Norfolk without success and seizing
and burning Hampton, Virginia, the British fleet began the
ascent of the Potomac. By the middle of July the enemy was
within sixty miles of the city. When messengers arrived bring-
1 Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison, p. 90. 2 The same.
3 Intelligencer, May 25, 1813. 4The same, June 1, 1813.
614 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ing this intelligence, “a reasonable and well-grounded fear
took possession of the city,” declares the French minister."
A few days later he records “every one is making ready to move.
I know they are secretly packing up at the departments.” He
adds, in reference to the defenceless state of the city, that the
government had but little means of stopping the hostile ap-
proach. By ten o’clock of the morning of the day when the
intelligence had been received at daylight, three thousand men
were on their way to Fort Washington. This force included
all the regular soldiers in camp in the vicinity of the city and
nearly all the volunteer companies of Washington and George-
town.? The frigate Adams and several gunboats that happened
to be at the navy yard for repairs were ordered to the same point.
The secretary of the navy, William Jones, was on board the
Adams, while the secretary of war, John Armstrong, took com-
mand of the 600 regular troops that were at the fort. The
secretary of state, James Monroe, who was regarded as possess-
ing military ability by a large number, which, however, unfortu-
nately for the harmony and effectiveness of the administration
of the war by the president and the cabinet, did not include
the secretary of war, went with a troop of cavalry on a scouting
trip down the river to observe the movements of the enemy.
Both the militia and cavalry parties were accompanied by many
members of congress.? The two houses were, however, left
with a quorum, and after directing a day of prayer went into
secret session on the situation.*
When the city had been stripped of its able-bodied men, all
business ceased, the theatre remained closed and the Jntelli-
gencer, with both editors gone and most of the printers, appeared
in a single sheet instead of two. So disturbed and unsettled
1 Serurier to Bassano, July 15, 1813. Quoted in Adams’s History,
Vol. 7, pp. 56-57.
2 Intelligencer, July 16, 1813.
3 The same, July 16, 1813. Adams, Vol. 7, p. 56.
‘It was at this time that the military committee of the house, in
reply to a resolution from a federal source, setting forth the defenceless
situation of the city, brought in a political report that the preparations
were in every respect adequate.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 615
was the public mind that on the evening of the day the mili-
tary left the city, a night watch or police was organized com-
posed of citizens, who volunteered for the service at the request
of the mayor. It was the first time in the history of the city
such a measure of protection had been resorted to, but it was
not entirely a war measure. For two years past the attention
of the city council had been called by the mayors in their annual
messages to the unsafe condition of the streets at night due to
the idle and disorderly persons roaming about at all hours. As
it proved, the night watch was only a temporary device. The
establishment of a workhouse in the fall of 1813 was followed
by an improvement in the good order of the city. As a further
means of protection two days after the watch force was estab-
lished a meeting of the men remaining in the city was held at
the capitol and steps taken to form into companies for the
defence of the city all men above forty-five years of age. The
mayor, Dr. James H. Blake, who had the previous month been
elected to that office, was requested, pending the formation of
the proposed military companies, to continue the night watch.”
In the meantime the military forces from the city were en-
camped about Fort Washington and along the road leading
from Piscataway to Port Tobacco, while the secretary of state
and his escort of cavalry had pushed down the river, and the
‘next morning while at breakfast in a house near Swans Point
on the Maryland side opposite Colonial Beach seven or eight
shots were fired at the house from the enemy’s vessels in the
river. No damage was done, and after taking this satisfaction
for the repulse which a landing party had met the previous
night from a militia force, and also having taken the soundings
of the river and marked the channel, the fleet July 21st dropped
down the river and resumed cruising in Chesapeake Bay.’
For nearly a week the enemy had been within sixty miles of the
city. They did not go above Cedar Point on the Maryland
side, now known as Lower Cedar Point, a few miles above Colo-
1 Message of Daniel Rapine. Journal Bd. of Alder., Vol. 5, June 11,
1812. Message of James H. Blake, same, June 21, 1813.
2 Intelligencer, July 17, 1813. 3 The same, July 19 and 22, 1813.
616 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
nial Beach. For the first time an attempt was made to provide
defences for the city additional to Fort Washington. At Green-
leaf Point the construction of earthworks was begun to mount
a battery of heavy guns. Furnaces were also built to supply
the guns with red-hot balls. Similar works were built near the
navy yard.! In the course of a week after the vessels left the
river, the soldiers returned to the city and their conduct was
commended in an order issued by the commanding general of
the militia.2 For a time the citizens of Washington were freed
from the apprehension of a visit from the British, whose ruth-
less course throughout the Chesapeake Bay region had aroused
their wrath as well as their anxiety. The ordinary current of
life was resumed in large part. The continued, and in English
opinion the unaccountable and surprising, successes of the
American navy stirred the citizens of the District in common
with their fellow-citizens of the country with patriotic pride.
When Commodore Bainbridge, “one of our most celebrated
naval heroes,” came to the city for a few days in the fall of
1813, a public dinner in his honor was given by the citizens of
Georgetown, and only the shortness of his stay prevented a
similar compliment from the citizens of Washington.? A few
weeks later, when it was learned that Captain Perry of Lake
Erie fame and the author of the phrase then on every lip, “ We
have met the enemy and they are ours,” was coming to the city,
a subscription paper for a public dinner at Tomlinson’s Hotel
was soon filled up. The day of public humiliation and prayer
set apart by action of congress in the fall of 1813 was observed
in Washington by the suspension of all business. Services were
held in the several churches, while at 12 o’clock the members
of the grand and subordinate lodges of Masons of the District
assembled at the Union lodge rooms on 11th Street, a short dis-
tance south of Pennsylvania Avenue. There they were met by
officers of the government, of the army and navy and marine
corps and citizens and strangers. A procession was formed which
passed along Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol, where an ora-
1 Intelligencer, July 21, 1813. 3 The same, Nov. 25, 1813.
2'The same, July 29, 1813. 4The same, Jan. 26 and 27, 1814.
' ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 617
tion was delivered by John Wiley in commemoration of the
heroism of Captain James Lawrence and his lieutenant, Augustus
C. Ludlow, who lost their lives in the fight of the Chesapeake,
and who were members of the order. The dying words of
Lawrence, “Don’t give up the ship,” had thrilled his country-
men, even though he had gone down in defeat.! It is apparent
one effect of the war at this period was an expansion of business.
The Bank of the Metropolis of Washington and the Farmers and
Mechanics Bank of Georgetown began their careers. A daily
evening paper was started, so that the city at the opening of
1814 had two daily papers and Georgetown one. There was,
as might naturally be expected, much travel to the city and
many visitors whom business and expectation of business
brought to the centre where the military and naval operations
were directed and where the purchase of supplies of all sorts
and the disbursement of large sums of money were decided
upon. No doubt it was this condition that prompted the publi-
cation of the first guide book of the city, giving the lists of depart-
ment officials and their chief clerks, bank directors, city officers,
magistrates, ete.” Six months previously from the same pub-
lisher came the announcement, just published and for sale
a north view of the president’s house in aqua tinta. The
price of this second known print of the president’s house is
given as fifty cents. There is no further record of it.2 When
1 Intelligencer, Sept. 9, 1813. The lodges then in the District were
Federal (founded 1793), Columbia (founded 1802), Naval (founded
1805), Union and Lebanon (founded 1811), Potomac in Georgetown
(regarded as the successor of the lodge established in 1789) and
the Alexandria-Washington and Alexandria-Brooke of Alexandria.
The Grand Lodge of the District was established in 1811. In the
year 1814 the Masons of the District numbered 250. History of the
Grand Lodge and of Free Masonry in the District of Columbia.
2 Davis Columbian Calendar. Price in paper 124 cents, in boards,
25 cents. Published and for sale by J. Milligan & Co., booksellers,
Georgetown. Intelligencer, Jan.1,1814. Nocopy of this book has been
preserved as far as known. At the close of the year a similar publica-
tion by an out-of-town publisher was offered for sale, entitled, The
Gentleman’s Pocket Remembrancer for the Year 1813. Jntelli-
gencer, Dec. 30, 1814.
3 Intelligencer, June 1, 1813. The first published representation of
618 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
congress met in the fall of 1813, in spite of the absorbing war
questions, the editor of the, Intelligencer took occasion to voice
what he believed was the sentiment of all patriotic citizens,
that the partially unfinished capitol building was a reproach
to the nation. As it then stood, with the unsightly covered
wooden passageway connecting the wings where the central
portion of the structure was intended to be and amid surround-
ings entirely unimproved and still confused with the litter of
building material, the editor was reminded of the splendid
ruins of Roman grandeur as described by Volney.! In a little
more than six months the capitol building, as well as all the
other public structures, were literally in ruins. The disaster
which had threatened the city for more than a year or since
Admiral Cockburn’s fleet had been cruising in Chesapeake
Bay, had at last happened. The cautious march of the invad-
ing force from Benedict on the Patuxent, thirty-five miles
southeast of the city, the rapid and thorough destruction of the
publie edifices and the hurried return to the vessels without
stopping to plunder and burn as on all previous occasions, point
clearly to the purpose of the expedition. This was on the 24th
of August, 1814, but ever since the early part of June the in-
habitants of the entire region from the Potomac to the Patuxent
had been in a state of panic. Their apprehensions were well
founded. At intervals stretching over a period of some ten
weeks barges from the British fleet carried marauding parties
up the Patuxent, and when they returned laden with plunder
of all kinds of food supplies, they left behind a trail of burned
villages, tobacco houses and farm-houses. There was no resist-
ance. The inhabitants fled at their approach.
The motive of the enemy in going up an interior stream like
the Patuxent, which ran parallel with and separated by some
twenty miles or more on the east from the Potomac but ex-
tended farther south to its juncture with the Chesapeake Bay,
the president’s house, also of the north front, formed the central feature
of the engraved title-page of The Stranger in America, by Charles
W. Janson, London, 1807. The author states this view was drawn by
Mr. Birch, an American artist. 1 Intelligencer, Dec. 2, 1813.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 619
© Seneca
Ve Fiela ©
Alexandria Upper Marlboro °
Wood Yard °
© Nothingham
SOT a
. WASHINGTON
Lower
Marlboro
Benedict @
‘ ui
nyt"
Williams Engraving Co., New York
—_—_—_—___—==a
Rovutp or THE British Army.
620 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
was primarily to destroy the little fleet of gunboats of the
American navy under the command of Captain Joshua Barney.
As the only means of protection in the great extent of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries these small and slight ves-
sels were inadequate, as they were unable to cope with the Brit-
ish men-of-war. They were chased from the bay and up into
the Patuxent, and when the enemy continued its pursuit the
American vessels took refuge in the shallower waters of St.
Leonard’s Bay, an arm of the Patuxent a few miles above its
mouth.
During one of the intervals when the British ships had left
the Patuxent, Barney’s vessels slipped out of this place of safety,
and passed up the Patuxent beyond Benedict, which was at
the head of the ship navigation of the stream, to the vicinity
of Nottingham. Here they were anchored, when on the 20th
of August the British army, leaving their vessels at Benedict,
fifteen miles from the mouth of the Patuxent, began that march
which ended four days later in the battle of Bladensburg and
the destruction of the city. But Captain Barney, finding that he
was liable to capture, as Admiral Cockburn and a force of men
in barges kept abreast of the columns of the land force, blew
up his boats, and turning his sailors into a land force, joined
the advance outpost of the American army at Old Fields, some
seven miles east from Washington and at the intersection of
two roads, one from Queen Ann on the Patuxent to the ferry
opposite Alexandria and the other from upper Marlboro to
Washington.
The only opposition the enemy encountered during the entire
period from their first appearance in the Patuxent the early
part of June to the last of August, when the troops returning
from Washington were taken on board the vessels and sought a
new field of conquest which Baltimore offered, occurred in the
latter part of June, when some Maryland militia skirmished
with the invaders at Benedict. The intelligence of the depreda-
tions of the enemy in June and July along the Patuxent, at
Benedict and Nottingham, and covering quite a distance in-
land in Calvert County, was received in Washington with alarm.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 621
It was not believed at this time before the British troops had
arrived from Europe that a mere landing force of sailors would
be marched as far away from their vessels as Washington.
Then again the secretary of war did not believe the enemy
would come to Washington, as it was not important enough.
Baltimore, he thought, was of more consequence. In fact, it
was not until the first of July, after information had been re-
ceived that English troops employed in the operations against
Napoleon, now that hostilities had ceased, would be sent to
America, that military preparations for the protection of the
city were begun in earnest. But this was only about six weeks
prior to its destruction. In addition to a lack of appreciation
of the gravity of the situation, as well as a lack of military ability
on the part of the authorities, there was also a great scarcity
of money. With the treasury empty and a great debt and the
need of meeting the war demands, the administration about a
week later decided upon an extra session of congress to meet
in September for the purpose of providing for the financial
extremity of the government. A few weeks before the enemy
reached the city the government was in such straits for money
that an offer was made by John P. Van Ness, representing the
banks of the District, to provide a loan for the defence of the
city. It was favorably received, but the details were not ar-
ranged until the imminence of the danger made further progress
impossible. In fact, the only defensive works provided at
this time near the city were some earthworks on the west side
of the Eastern Branch, commanding the approach to the bridge
at Bladensburg, which were built by the volunteer labor of
citizens of Washington.? Fort Washington was in an unfinished
state, while the earthworks at Greenleaf Point and at the navy
yard were not manned, and there were no naval vessels in the
vicinity. When the military authorities began to bestir them-
1At that time Washington was made a part of the new military
district No. 10, under command of General W. H. Winder, who a
month later established his headquarters in the city.
2 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 582. In the
confusion of the day of the battle the principal earthwork was not
made use of.
622 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
selves to provide for even the contingency of an attack on the
city, the entire effort was_directed to securing a militia force
from the adjoining states to be used in connection with the
District militia. This reliance placed upon troops furnished
by the state governors differed in no respect from the course
pursued in securing a military force on the Canadian border.
What proved to be a vital defect in the plan for Washington
and contributed to the disastrous failure was the policy of not
calling out the troops until a serious attack was menaced. As
one result of hurrying troops into the field, they appeared on the
day of battle exhausted and worn by long marches in the hot
weather and lack of proper food and shelter.
The same course was pursued earlier in calling out the District
militia. On these occasions in June and July the District militia
either in whole or in part was summoned for active service.
The first call was revoked when intelligence was received that
the enemy having come up the Patuxent to Benedict had
retired! Four days later came the alarming intelligence that
the enemy had appeared at Nottingham, which is on a line
about parallel with Fort Washington but some twenty-two
miles from Washington. A force of 280 men under the
command of Major George Peter marched to the front and
reached Benedict. The enemy had disappeared. The troops
were ordered home, and after a ten days’ service were mustered
out.” The apprehension of the public mind at this juncture
may be judged by a notice in the Intelligencer calling a meeting
of the clergy of the city to consider the propriety of setting
apart a day for prayer and fasting, “the reasons for which are
obvious.” * In a little more than two weeks the enemy was
again reported in the Patuxent. Three companies of militia
under command of Captain Davidson were called out.4 After
marching as far as Woodyard, a short distance east of Upper
1 Federal Republican, June 6 and June 18, 1814.
2 Intelligencer, June 20, 1814. Upon their return home the soldiers
were given a banquet by the citizens in Parrott’s Woods. Federal
Republican, July 1, 1814.
3 Intelligencer, June 29, 1814.
4 The same, July 19, 1814.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 623
Marlboro, and twelve miles from Washington, reports were re-
ceived that the enemy had retired, and the troops returned to
their homes and were discharged after nine days’ service On
the day the military companies left the city on the last occasion,
the city council was called in special session by the mayor to
consider the defenceless condition of the city, and a committee
was appointed to call on the president of the United States
and urge that some measures be adopted.2 The mayor was
also authorized to appoint a committee of vigilance. A simi-
lar committee from the town of Alexandria had represented to
the military authorities the situation of that place as without
means of defence. The mayor of Georgetown, Captain John
Peter, who was also in command of a military company and
had recently gone out with his command, called on the presi-
dent with the mayor of Washington and made similar repre-
sentations. Even at this time reliance continued to be placed
on securing an adequate military force when the occasion arose.
As the events proved this expectation was disappointing.
Even when the District militia was called out for a brief ser-
vice the provision of arms and ammunition, tents and food, was
insufficient. In the earlier tours of duty, complaints were
made of these deficiencies.? On the last alarm prior to the
invasion, when the District militia went into camp four miles
from the Eastern Branch Bridge, Saturday, August 20th, their
first night out, many of the soldiers were compelled to lie out
in the open owing to the lack of tents. At that time 4000 Brit-
ish regulars had landed at Benedict, and the next day began the
march to the city. But only a few of the militia from the ad-
joining states had made their appearance at Bladensburg, where
it was expected the attempt to enter the city would be made
unless, as it was considered, they might turn off and march
1 Intelligencer, July 25 and 28, 1814.
2 The committee was composed of the mayor, Dr. James H. Blake,
Elias B. Caldwell, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Buller Cocke, Walter
Jones, Jr., and Thomas Munroe. Vol. 4, Journal of the Common
Council, July 18, 1814. Intelligencer, July 26, 1814.
3 Federal Republican, June 20, 1814.
4 American State Papers, Military Affairs, Vol 1, p. 564.
624 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
against Fort Washington or else approach the city by way of
one of the Eastern Branch bridges. About noon on Sunday
the day after the troops of the city marched off in defence of
their homes, the mayor issued a call for all able-bodied citizens
remaining in the city, and as illustrating the extremity of the
need he included also all free men of color, to meet the next
day at the capitol and from thence go to Bladensburg and
throw up breastworks.!_ The response was a generous one, and
between four and five hundred men met and were supplied with
picks and shovels and spent the day in providing, forty-eight
hours before the battle, the only defences which were available
in that locality. The intervening Sunday was perhaps the
least restful that Washington had ever known. The terror
of the name of the ruthless British soldiery was universal,
and added to that was the prospect of the loss of loved
ones then with the forces of defence. A feverish bustle of
preparation to leave their homes and save as much property
as possible pervaded the entire city. Books and papers in
the executive departments were packed by the clerks, and
as rapidly as conveyances could be procured were sent out
of the city. The archives of the state department, placed
in linen bags, were sent to Leesburg, Va., and stored in a
vacant house.”
On Monday, August 22, there was a general exodus from the
city and Georgetown and by Tuesday evening very few women
and children remained. By Wednesday when the battle of
Bladensburg occurred, the public offices were closed, and all
business was at a standstill. The president and the mem-
bers of his cabinet spent most of these days on horseback, riding
between General Winder’s camp and the city. They spent the
night of Monday, Aug. 22, at Old Fields, and the following
1 Reprinted from Washington City Gazette in Poulson’s American
Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), Aug. 26, 1814.
2 Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison.
’ Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 98. Dr. Blake, the mayor
of the city, stated two days after the invasion that nine-tenths of the
inhabitants were away. Intelligencer, Sept. 10, 1814.
‘Manuscript Diary of Mrs. Thornton. Library of Congress.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 625
morning at sunrise a cabinet council was held.!- Mrs. Madison,
left alone in the president’s house, busied herself in superin-
tending the placing of the cabinet papers in trunks so as to fill
one carriage. A guard of a hundred men, procured by one of
her friends, presumably Charles Carroll of Bellvue, was stationed
on Tuesday about the house.?
In the meantime the British troops slowly but surely were
approaching the city. They met with no opposition in their
march. On reaching Upper Marlboro on Wednesday, August 22,
sixteen miles from Washington, there lay between them and
Washington via the Eastern Branch Bridge, the American forces
of about twenty-five hundred, which on that day had been
strengthened by the coming of Captain Barney and six hundred
sailors from the flotilla which they had blown up the previous
day by order of the commander. The Americans had advanced
as far as Woodyard, and had then fallen back to Old Fields,
some seven miles from Washington.
Tuesday evening a further withdrawal was ordered, as it was
feared the enemy might approach the city from that direction
rather than by Bladensburg, and so the men were hurried back
to the city and formed on the city side of the bridge. The
following morning, Wednesday, August 24, the enemy took the
road to Bladensburg, and about two o’clock that afternoon
their red coats were seen as the lines passed through the village
to the bridge. On the other side of the Eastern Branch the
Americans were posted, numbering some three thousand men.
The steady advance of the British veterans and their use of
rockets threw the American line into confusion and it gave way.
In the meantime General Winder had brought his force from
the city which formed a second line. Just where the Bladens-
burg road crossed the District line, Captain Barney and his
sailors brought their guns into action and made the most effec-
tive resistance which the enemy encountered.’ But the little
1 Affidavit of Tench Ringgold. 2ist Cong., Ist Sess., House No.
276, March 6, 1830.
2 Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison, p. 108.
’ The city council, by an act approved Oct. 18, 1814, appropriated
a@ sum not to exceed $300 to procure a sword ‘‘as a testimony of their
VOL. I—28
626 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
artillery force was soon surrounded and its intrepid leader
became a prisoner. Before the second line, formed mainly of
the District militia, got into the fight, the order was given by
General Winder to retreat. By four o’clock in the afternoon a
confused mass of soldiers and horses and wagons filled the road
that led to the city. The men, exhausted before the battle
began, felt the effect of the intense heat of the day and of the
excitement. The force of some six thousand scattered over the
country, some through the city and Georgetown to Wisconsin
Avenue and others over the old Bladensburg Road and then by
the Rock Creek Church Road. General Winder was followed
by a large number through the city, and that night made camp
on the River Road, five miles north of Tenleytown. The next
day the journey was continued to Rockville, sixteen miles
north of Washington, and thence still farther north to the Fred-
erick Road and then to Baltimore.
The British also felt the exhaustion of the heat and of the
march, and when their foes retired they rested for a couple of
hours and then took up the march to the city, which they reached
about dusk. A camp was formed in the extreme eastern sec-
tion of the city, while a detachment under command of General
Ross, accompanied by Admiral Cockburn, rode down Maryland
Avenue. At the northwest corner of that thoroughfare with 2d
Street, N. E., they were greeted with a fusilade from the house
of Robert Sewall. The horse General Ross was riding was
killed, and the house was ordered to be burned, which was done.
About eight o’clock the capitol was reached, and was set on fire,
and about eleven o’clock a detachment passed up Pennsylvania
Avenue to the president’s house, which was destroyed.
While the capitol was burning, Captain Tingey, carrying
out the orders of the secretary of the navy, set the buildings in
the navy yard on fire. The Eastern Branch Bridge had been
blown up a short time before. The upper bridge was also
destroyed, as well as the Potomac Bridge, but the latter was not
done until the next day, when the corporal in charge of the
respect for the gallantry and intrepidity displayed by himself and the
officers and men under his command.”’ Also Intelligencer, Oct. 1, 1814.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 627
guard set on fire the Virginia end while the British applied the
torch to the city end.
The French minister, M. Serurier, had remained in the city.
He was living in the Octagon House at the northeast corner of
New York Avenue and 18th Street, N. W.1 About eleven o’clock
that night M. Serurier saw a detachment of soldiers with torches
coming towards the president’s house. He sent a messenger
with a letter to the officer in command, asking that a guard be
furnished to protect his house. “My messenger,” writes
Serurier to Talleyrand,? “found General Ross in the White
House,* where he was collecting in the drawing room [the Blue
Room] all the furniture to be found and preparing to set it on
fire.”
General Ross sent assurances that “the king’s house” would
be protected.
A violent thunderstorm with rain served to check the flames.
The following morning detachments of soldiers were sent
through the city and the war and treasury offices were burned
and also the arsenal at Greenleaf Point, where an expiosion of
gunpowder killed about one hundred of the invaders. The
rope walks of Ringgold, Heath and Co., and of John Chalmers
in the immediate vicinity were destroyed. The hotel building
at A Street, and Delaware Avenue, N. E., owned by Daniel
Carroll and occupied by B. H. Tomlinson and the two houses
built by General Washington on the west side of North Capitol
Street, between B and C streets, were also destroyed. How-
1 He had succeeded as tenant Paul Hamilton, secretary of the navy,
who resigned that position in 1813. His successor, William Jones, was
at that time living in one of the Peter Houses on K St., between 26th
and 27th streets, N. W.
2 Quoted in Adams’s History, Vol. 8, p. 145.
3 The use of that term by the French minister indicates that it was
generally employed at that time. The same inference may be drawn
from the use of the term in a letter signed Publius, addressed to the
president, printed in the Federal Republican, Noy. 4, 1814. The
latter is the first appearance in print as far as known of this designation
which is now the official title of the president’s house.
4 A plausible explanation of this act is to be found in the statement
of Patrick Magruder, clerk of the house, that in the haste of removing
the records of the house by the house officials some were stored in
628 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
ever, as the Intelligencer stated, “greater respect was certainly
paid to private property than has commonly been exhibited by
the enemy in his marauding parties.” 1 The general explanation
given of the failure to exempt private property entirely is that in
some way the British officers were misinformed both as to the
ownership and the uses of the property destroyed, while it is
also stated the hotel building was set on fire by embers from
the capitol. The office of the Intelligencer on Pennsylvania
Avenue, just west of 6th Street, was included, because from there
was issued the organ of the administration. Through the per-
sonal appeal of Dr. William Thornton, the superintendent of
the Patent Office, the building at the northeast corner of 8th
and E streets, N. W., occupied by the post-office department
as well as the patent office, was saved.? On the afternoon of
the second day after the coming of the enemy a tornado struck
the city which did great damage, blowing off the roofs of houses
and destroying chimneys. That evening, leaving their camp
fires burning in the eastern portion of the city, the invading
force marched away and passing through Bladensburg where
a hospital of their wounded was left to the care of the citizens,
a rapid march was made to Benedict, where the ships were
boarded.
The result of the battle in killed and wounded as officially
reported by General Ross was 64 killed and 185 wounded,
while the total for the Americans was 26 killed and 51 wounded.
More than 100 wounded were left behind, while a committee
of citizens buried about 200.3 A hospital was opened in Car-
roll Row on Ist Street, E., opposite the capitol grounds by Dr.
James Ewell, a practising physician whose office and residence
was at that time in the south building of the row.
A short time before the American soldiers in retreat poured
the Washington buildings. Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d
Sess., Jan. 23, 1815, p. 1100.
1Sept. 1, 1814.
2 Intelligencer, May 8, 1814.
>The same, Sept. 1, 1814. Gleig, an English officer who accom-
panied the expedition, in his book, The Subaltern in America, gives
the total British loss as five hundred.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 629
into the city, Mrs. Madison, having secured such property as
could be carried, including a portrait of General Washington,
which was cut from the frame, left the White House. She
went through Georgetown, and that night slept in a camp of
soldiers with a guard about her tent. The next day she crossed
the river into Virginia, where she remained two days and on the
third, which was Sunday, August 28, she returned to the city
where she rejoined the president, who had gotten back the
previous day. The wanderings of the president during the
three days he had been away had covered quite a wide circuit.
He accompanied the marching columns to the scene of battle,
and leaving before the rout became general, he reached the
White House a few hours after Mrs. Madison went away. Then
in company with Mr. Jones, the secretary of the navy, and Mr.
Rush, the attorney-general, he hurried from the house, and
crossing the Potomac at Masons Ferry travelled through Vir-
ginia, stopping the first night at a farmhouse about ten miles
from Washington. From there he passed north, and then
crossing the Potomac went to Rockville and thence to Brook-
ville six miles north of Rockviile, with the view of meeting
General Winder.1 He spent that night at Brookville, and the
next day he went to Washington, reaching the capital city
Saturday afternoon, August 27.2, The next day Mrs. Madison
came from her retreat in Virginia and the president, leaving the
house of Mr. Rush, where he had been a guest, found his wife
at the home of Richard Cutts, Mrs. Madison’s brother-in-law.
At that time Mr. Cutts was superintendent general of military
supplies and was living in the house on the site of 1333-1335
F Street, N. W., which Mr. Madison occupied while secretary
of state. Mr. Madison was accompanied the latter part of
his journey by a cavalry guard under the command of Colonel
Armistead T. Mason, and on his return to Washington a guard
was maintained about his house. At night, as the troops were
without tents, they slept on straw spread on the street before
1 Adams’s History, Vol. 8, p. 150.
2 The First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 107.
8 Mrs. Thornton’s Manuscript Diary.
630 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the door. The temporary White House was continued in the
F Street house some ten days and then President and Mrs.
Madison removed to the house of Colonel Tayloe’ which had a
few days previously been given up by the French minister, who
had removed to Philadelphia.? Before the end of the next month
the Russian minister had also changed his residence to Philadel-
phia.*? The ministers from Holland and Sweden had gone else-
where, while Spain’s representative had never had a home in
Washington. The diplomatic corps had only five members, none
of whom in the season of 1814-1815 lived at the nation’s capital.’
The city was still threatened by the enemy, for at the time
of the president’s return, a portion of the British fleet under
command of Captain Gordon ascending the Potomac had
reached Fort Washington. The garrison under command of
Captain S. T. Dyson, of the artillery corps of the army, without
making any resistance, blew up the fortifications and abandoned
them. The sound of the explosion was heard in the city, and
when on Monday, August 29, the hostile vessels anchored be-
fore the town of Alexandria, a number of the citizens of Wash-
ington fled. There was talk of making terms with the enemy
in the event the city was attacked, but the president declined
to consider such a proposition.°
The next day the troops of Georgetown were drawn up in
line along the river front in anticipation of the hostile approach.*®
However, after remaining in front of Alexandria for four days
and loading the vessels with flour, tobacco, cotton, wine and
sugar from the warehouses, the vessels dropped down the river,
and after running through a fusillade from guns hastily stationed
at various points, finally reached the bay.’ The city continued
1 Intelligencer, Sept. 9, 1814.
2 Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser, Sept. 5, 1814.
3 Intelligencer, Oct. 28, 1814.
4The same, Feb. 25, 1815.
5’ Mrs. Thornton’s Manuscript Diary. Also Adams’s History,
Vol. 8, p. 151.
6 Federal Republican, Aug. 30, 1814. Reprinted in Poulson’s
American Daily Advertiser, September 2.
7Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser, Sept. 6, 1814.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 631
to have a martial air. A relay of vedettes or mounted mes-
sengers was maintained along the roads between Washington
and Baltimore and Richmond to bring to the war office the
latest intelligence of the movements of the enemy. Mr. Monroe,
who was also the secretary of war, as well as secretary of state,
had his office in his house on the north side of Pennsylvania
Avenue, between 20th and 21st streets, while in the Western
Market house, directly in front of his residence, a company of
vedettes was stationed.
Two days before the invading force left Alexandria a be-
ginning was made towards a resumption of the public busi-
ness. Workmen were engaged in repairing the damage caused
by the storm to the roof of the post-office department, the only
public building that escaped the British torch.2 Then on the
day following the withdrawal of the British vessels, and nine
days after the invasion of the city, directions were given to have
the models removed from the room they occupied in that build-
ing, so as to make a place for the sessions of congress which
had been called to meet on the 19th of September, a little more
than two weeks later.* As a preliminary to the necessary
changes in the interior of the building the post-office department
was removed to a rented building on the north side of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue, just west of 9th Street, N.W.4 No change was
made in the quarters of the city post-office, which continued
to occupy rooms in the building after congress convened.°
The other executive offices were located in private houses
rented for the use of the government mostly in the vicinity of
1 Affidavit of Tench Ringgold. 21st Cong., Ist Sess., House No.
276. March 6, 1830.
2 Mrs. Thornton’s Manuscript Diary, Aug. 31, 1814.
3 The same, Sept. 3, 1814.
4 Intelligencer, Sept. 12,1812. Notice of the location of the clerk of
the circuit court in the building adjoining that occupied by the post-office
department.
5 The city post-office, after occupying for a period arented building on
the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 17th and 18th streets,
upon leaving the southwest executive building in the year 1810, had
in the fall of 1811 found a home again in a government building when
the Blodgett Hotel was purchased and fitted up for the use of the post-
office department and patent office. Coll. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6, p. 168.
632 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
the White House. In a house on the south side of G between
17th and 18th streets, the state department resumed business,
while the general land office found quarters on the south side
of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 17thand 18thstreets. The war
department was located on the north side of F Street, adjoining
on the east the corner of 15th Street, and the accountant’s office
was on the same street between 12th and 13th streets. The
navy department was housed in the Seven Buildings, on the
north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 19th and 20th
streets. Onthe northside of Pennsylvania Avenue, between 20th
and 21st streets, in a house adjoining the one occupied as a resi-
dence by James Monroe, secretary of state, was the office of the
register of the treasury, Joseph Nourse, and next to it was the
Franklin House, where the treasury department was located.!
The office of pay and deposit of the Bank of Columbia, the
fiscal agent of the government in Washington, two weeks after
the invasion of the city, was opened for the transaction of
business in the west building of the row of the Seven Buildings.
A week after the enemy entered the city the Intelligencer, with
borrowed type, had been able to resume publication, but with
a smaller sheet. The Federal Republican also again appeared.
A further resumption of the interrupted current of com-
munity life was witnessed when the usual session of the circuit
court was held in November, 1814, in Alexandria, and the next
term in Washington in December. It is supposed the court
met in “Mr. Carroll’s house,” near the capitol, probably on
B Street, east of Delaware Avenue, N. E., as it did the following
June,’ and also againthatfall. When the supreme court met for
its annual session in February, 1815, its sittings were held “in the
house taken for the accommodation of the supreme court on
Capitol Hill,” as was the case the following year.’
1 Intelligencer, Sept. 9, 1814, and later issues. Also the same for May
7, 1816, in advertisement of William O’Neale offering the house for sale
or rent, as “‘the Treasury has removed.”’
2 The same, June 8, 1815.
’ The same, Feb.6,1815. According to a statement in ‘‘Elias Bou-
dinot Caldwell, a sketch” by his granddaughter, Hallie L. Wright (n. p.
n. d.), this house was the residence of Mr. Caldwell, the clerk of the
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 633
Some weeks passed before the city was free from the pres-
ence of armed men. Companies were camped in various sec-
tions of the city and vicinity,! while at Camp Hill at 23d and
E streets, N. W., an armed force was maintained.2. In addi-
tion to the loss sustained by the citizens due to the suspension
of all business and the interference with the usual course of
community life, their feelings were outraged by the comments
made on the affair at Bladensburg, which was given the name
of the “Bladensburg Races,” a term which stuck. It was
especially irritating and mortifying to read in the newspaper
accounts that the District soldiery had shown the white
feather on that day. These slanders were refuted in a letter
written by General Winder to Brigadier-General Walter Smith
in command of the District troops,’ while the mayor of the
city called attention to these misrepresentations in his mes-
sage to the city council.t| The interests of the citizens were
assailed in a more vital point, for two days after Congress
assembled, the Intelligencer informed the community that
“we hear some indistinct suggestions buzzed abroad of a de-
sign to endeavor, in consequence of recent events, to remove the
seat of government temporarily or permanently from this
place.” ® A week later the “indistinct suggestions” were
given definite form by the introduction in the house of a resolu-
tion providing for the temporary removal of the seat of govern-
ment to some other place that was safer and more comfortable
until such a time as the public edifices were rebuilt, when con-
gress and the public offices were to be established again in Wash-
ington.®
It soon became apparent there was a good deal of scepticism
about the temporary character of the proposed removal, which
was increased when three days after the resolution had been
introduced in the house and referred to a committee and before
a report had been made, offers were received from the common
court, which is still standing and known as 204-206 Pennsylvania
Avenue, S. E. 1 Intelligencer, Sept. 16, 1814.
2 The same, Oct. 6, 1814. 3 The same, Oct. 8, 1814.
4 Journal Bd. of Alder., Vol. 5, Sept. 22, 1814. 5 Sept. 21, 1814.
6 Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 312.
634 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
councils of the city of Philadelphia and of Lancaster, Pa.,
placing at the disposal of congress buildings in those places.
The committee brought in an adverse report, which was re-
jected by the house, and a report directed to be made providing
for a removal. The temporary character of the change was
again maintained, and in the course of the debate it was proposed
to fill in the blanks left for the name of the temporary seat of
government by inserting Philadelphia. The name of George-
town was also proposed. Some ten days prior to the appear-
ance of this nearby rival, as stated in a letter from George-
town, printed in the Baltimore Telegraph, and reprinted without
comment in the Jntelligencer,! the corporation of Georgetown
had taken formal action and had offered for the use of congress
the building of Georgetown College.? The writer mentioned
as an inducement for a favorable consideration of George-
town, “that board for the members will be provided in the
town at ten dollars per week instead of sixteen dollars as charged
by Washington hotels.”
The chief argument advanced in favor of removal was the
defenceless condition of the city and the liability of another
attack from the enemy. At the same time there was not lack-
ing the appeal to the patriotic pride of the members not to be
driven from the city, for as one of the speakers exclaimed, he
would rather sit under canvass in the city than remove one
mile out of it to a palace. Still the inconvenience and dis-
comfort of the members of the house was undoubtedly great,
for if the entire membership of one hundred and seventy-six
had been present there would not have been seats enough
in the room they were then occupying, “although every spot
up to the fireplaces and windows is occupied.” * Fortunately
for the dignity of the nation and incidentally the peace of mind
of the citizens, the house in the course of three weeks decided
against removal, and in favor of rebuilding the public buildings
1 Oct. 3, 1814.
2 Resolution of the Georgetown council. Intelligencer, Oct. 5, 1814.
3’ Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 353. Nineteen
members were absent, so that one hundred and fifty-seven had seats.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 635
on the same sites, accepting the offer of the banks of the Dis-
trict to loan to the government half a million of dollars for this
purpose. Three months passed before, with the concurrence
of the senate, the bill became law.! The offer of the District
banks was a practical voicing of the sentiment of the citizens
on the question, perhaps more effective than the memorial
protesting against removal adopted at a mass meeting.” A
further manifestation of public spirit was shown soon after the
house had disposed of the removal question, when the city
council adopted resolutions providing for the appointment of
committees in each ward to solicit contributions of money and
labor in the construction of such works of defence on the Poto-
mac as the general government may direct. In a few days,
owing to the contributions from citizens of Washington and of
Alexandria, the plans for the restoration of Fort Washington pre-
pared by Major Charles Pierre L’Enfant were under way.
No doubt the references on the floor of the house to the defence-
less condition of the city, as well as the continuance of the war,
for the news of the signing of the treaty of Ghent was not
received in this country until after the middle of February,
1815, accounts for the promptness with which the work was
begun. At the same time this incident brings out in a striking
way the financial resources of the government, when public
works of defence were built at private expense. During this
period too the city council made an appropriation for making
sidewalks of gravel between the temporary capitol and the
principal centres where the hotels and boarding houses were
grouped. These were McKeowin’s or Davis Tavern, Pennsyl-
vania Avenue and 6th Street, the vicinity of Pennsylvania
1The vote in the house proved to be a close one, and the following
analysis of it appeared in the Jntelligencer, Oct. 18, 1816, indicating that
politics was a strong influence.
For RemMovAL Aqarnst REMOVAL
Republicans 30 74
Federalists 24. 9
54 83
2 Intelligencer, Oct. 10, 1814.
The same, Nov. 2 and 3 and 9, 1814. Bd. of Alder., Vol. 5, Oct.
31, 1814.
636 A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
Avenue and 9th Street, the Washington Hotel or McLeod’s,
Pennsylvania Avenue, between 14th and 15th streets, and the
vicinity of 15th and F streets.!. The day after the house had
decided against removal, the consideration was begun of Mr.
Jefferson’s offer to sell his library to replace the one de-
stroyed by the burning of the capitol. Before congress
ended that session, a bill providing for the purchase of the
library had become a law. The office of librarian was for
the first time separated from the office of clerk of the house
and George Watterston was appointed the first librarian of
congress. By the following July the books had been forwarded
from Monticello and were being arranged on shelves in a room
in the third story of the post-office department building.”
In this building a few days after congress adjourned in March,
were established the offices of John P. Van Ness, Richard Bland
Lee and Tench Ringgold, the three commissioners appointed
by the president to have charge of the rebuilding of the public
edifices. While the contractors and material supply men were
coming to the building to see about what was needed in way of
work and materials, and while Mr. Watterston was unpacking
the Jefferson library, a force of workmen began in the month
of July to tear down the old Tunnicliff Tavern building on A
Street, just east of Ist Street, N. E., while others were turning
up the ground of the vacant lots to the west and preparing for
the foundations of the building which was ready for the use of
congress the following December. The garden along the 1st
Street front, planted and cultivated all the season, was now de-
stroyed, so that the next session of congress assembled in a
building on a site where less than six months before a garden
bloomed.? The erection of this building, the largest up to that
1 Jour. Bd. of Alder., Vol. 5, Sept. 22, 1814. At a dinner given at
McKeowin’s Hotel by the citizens of the District to the secretary of
the navy, William Jones, who had resigned that office, the Star-Spangled
Banner was sung for the first timein Washington. Jntelligencer, Dec. 14,
1814. The lines appeared in the Jntelligencer, Nov. 26, 1814, taken from
a Baltimore paper.
2 History of Library of Congress, p. 67.
3 Intelligencer, Dec. 12, 1815.
ECHOES OF THE BURR CONSPIRACY 637
time built by private enterprise, was due to the public spirit of
thirty-eight citizens, who formed a stock company, and by the
sale of stock at $100 per-share raised $17,362.! The new
structure, which stood on the northeast corner of Ist and A
streets, occupied only a portion of the building site acquired by
the company. It was three stories in height, with a high-pitched
roof. ‘The principal entrance was through a wide-arched door
from Ist Street, and above was a large window opening. The
senate chamber on the first floor was forty-five feet long and
fifteen feet wide, while the room occupied by the house was on
the second floor, and its dimensions were seventy-five by forty-
five feet with a gallery. Brick was the material used in the
walls, and the entire cost was $25,000, not including $5000 for
special fittings for the use of congress, paid from the public
treasury. The rent was fixed on a basis of six per cent on the
cost of the building, with an allowance for insurance, so that
the annual payment was $1650.”
1'The owners of the old tavern property, Moses Young, Henry Ingle
and EK. B. Caldwell, accepted stock to the value of $4612 in payment.
2 Daniel Carroll of Duddington held 20 shares, Thomas Law 15,
Griffith Coombe and William Brent, 10, William Emack, Robert
Brent, William D. Digges, Charles Carroll of Bellevue, Henry Ingle
and Benjamin Burns, 5 each, James D. Barry 43, John C. Dixon 4,
B. G. Orr, Alexander McCormick and Frederick May, 3 each, Daniel
Brent, Daniel Rapine, Gilbert Docker and Samuel Eliot, 2 each, James
Young, Thomas Claxton, Benjamin Burch, Nicholas L. Queen, Fran-
eis Pic, I. S. Middleton, Henry Burford, John Coyle, Adam Lindsay,
Thomas Foyles, Samuel N. Smallwood, Kane and Love, and John
Carns, 1 each, Charles Glover and Overton Carr, } share each. The
above, in addition to the three owners of the old tavern property, were
the original stockholders. From the manuscript record book of the
company in the possession of Mrs. Frederic L. Moore.
INDEX
A
Abbott, John, an incorporator of
Georgetown Lancaster School So-
ciety, 484 n.
Acquia, Va., material from quarries at,
used in public buildings of Wash-
ington, 169, 231, 411.
Acquia Creek, steamboat transporta-
tion between Washington and,
538-539.
Adams, H. B., ‘‘The College of Wil-
liam and Mary,” cited, 89.
Adams, John, President, 339, 341; visit
of, to city of Washington (1800),
347-350; defeat of, in election
of 1800, 374; arrival of, in Wash-
ington upon establishment there of
seat of government, 376; message
to congress upon first meeting in
Washington, 378-379; levee held
by, 382; appointments to District
offices made by, in last days of
administration, 401-403; depart-
ure of, from Washington, 404;
changes made by Jefferson in
appointments of, 409-412; ac-
count of, with national treasury
for accommodation of his house-
hold, 417 n.
Adams, Mrs. John, impression made
upon, by city of Washington, 354,
376.
Adams, John Quincy, 347; quoted
in connection with question of
government of District of Colum-
bia, 444-445; ‘‘Memoirs”’ of,
cited and quoted, 453 n., 458, 461;
at races of Washington Jockey
Club, 610.
Adams’s History, cited and quoted,
590, 591, 614, 629, 630.
Addison, John, 74, 81.
Addison, Colonel Thomas, 72.
Addison, Rev. Walter Dulaney,
founder of St. John’s Episcopal
Church in Georgetown, 88, 604;
school set up at Oxen Run by, 90;
incorporator of Georgetown Lan-
easter School Society, 484 n.;
vice-president of Bible Society of
District of Columbia, 601 n.
Admiralty, court of, for the Potomac
district, 423-424.
Agricultural exhibitions, 596-597.
Agricultural Museum, first American
agricultural journal, 596.
Agriculture, early extravagant methods
of, in Potomac region, 49; report
on conditions in and about district,
by Thomas Johnson and Dr.
Stuart, 171-173.
Ague, prevalence of, in early Wash-
ington, 376 n., 515.
Alexander, Charles, Jr., appointed
coroner in Alexandria County, 424.
Alexander, J. A., quoted, 13.
Alexander, Sally K., ‘“‘Sketch of Life
of Andrew Ellicott,” cited, 126.
Alexandria, Va., proposed by Jefferson
as a, meeting place of congress, 18 n.,
32; church at, attended by Wash-
ington, 82; progress of, as a com-
mercial centre, 93, 98-100; impor-
tance of, as a commercial centre
indicated by chartering of Bank
of Alexandria, 208; progress in
growth of, 275; Library Company
of, 301; newspapers in, 303, 369,
436, 586; practising physicians
at, 324 n.; fortifications built at,
332; opening of theatre in, 334;
Marine Insurance Company of,
337; visit of President Adams to,
349-350; population in 1800, 355,
356; celebration in, over discharge
of members of additional army
(1800), 386; session of circuit
court of District in, 422, 424;
President Jefferson entertained at
dinner in, 423; banks of, 431, 535;
voting qualifications in, 446; salary
of mayor of, 468 n.; Sunday restric-
tions in, 489-490; measures of poor
relief in, 540 n.; congressional dis-
crimination against, in matter of a
jail, 545; uight watch established in,
548 n.; fire insurance companies
in, 564; lodges of Masons in, 617 n.
Alexandria County, creation of, by
law of 1801, 401.
Alexandria Daily Advertiser, 369, 586;
name changed to Alexandria Gazette,
586 n.
639
640
Alexandria Gazette, 369 n., 586 n.
Alexandria Herald, 586.
Alexandria Times, career of, 303. >
Allen, Rev. Mr., school taught by, in
Georgetown, 90.
INDEX
Bacon, Rev. Thomas, quoted on lack
of educational facilities in early
Maryland, 89.
Baily, Francis, pen pictures of District
by, 272, 273.
American Literary Advertiser, Wash-| Balch, Rev. Stephen B., Columbian
ington weekly, 588 n.
Ames, Fisher, cited concerning trading
over permanent seat of government,
28, 42-43.
Anacostan Indians, 47.
Anacostia Bridge Company, 336, 492.
Anacostia river and island, 47-48.
Analostan Island, efforts to remove
mud bank below, 429-430, 496-
497.
Andrei, Giovanni, Italian
employed on capitol, 454.
Annapolis, Md., efforts of people of,
to secure permanent seat of gov-
ernment at, 5-6; meeting of congress
at (1783), 12, 18; trade convention
at, 30; dates of incorporation and
of chartering of, 57.
Apollo Press, the, 435.
Appleton, John, brother-in-law of
James Greenleaf, 291.
Appropriation Map, Dermott’s, 324.
Arlington Sheep Shearing, the, 597.
Armstrong, John, secretary of war,
614.
Army, assignment of, for duty at
Washington, 385; unpopularity of,
with Republicans, 386. See
Militia.
Arsenal, Washington, 527.
Arthur, Rev. Michael, school started
by, 382 n.
Asbury, Francis, first Methodist bishop
in United States, 87.
Assembly, the first dancing, 292-293.
Assessment, total amount of, in Wash-
ington (1803), 469.
Associated Reformed Church in Wash-
ington, 599-601.
Atlantic World, weekly paper started
in interests of Aaron Burr, 585,
586, 588.
Auction sales of city lots in federal
district, 150 ff., 159-161.
Austin, Rey. David, activities of, in
Washington, 407-408.
Avenues in Washington, naming of,
155, 512.
sculptor
B
Bachelors, taxation of, by Maryland
assembly (1765), 66.
Bacon, John, retrocession resolution
by, 440, 442.
Academy conducted by, 90; pastor
of Georgetown Presbyterian Church,
83; library and school started under
initiative of, 301; sermon delivered
by, at first observance of Wash-
ington’s birthday, 339; letters by,
in defence of infant baptism, 408;
an incorporator of Georgetown Lan-
caster School Society, 484 n.; an
incorporator of Columbian Library,
522 n.; secretary of Bible Society
of District of Columbia, 601 n.
Balch, Rev. Thomas B., ‘‘ Reminis-
cences of Georgetown,’’ quoted and
cited, 72 n., 83, 90, 102.
Ballandine, John, 68.
Baltimore, offer made by, to secure
permanent seat of government,
36-37; date of creation as a market
and port of entry, 57-58; growth
of, and progress as a _ shipping
port, 92, 93; trade of, contrasted
with that of Georgetown and Alex-
andria, 98-100; advantages and
disadvantages of, as federal seat,
107-108; yellow fever epidemic in
(1797), 305.
Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 96.
Baltimore-Frederick Road, 63.
Band of United States Marine Corps,
371, 406, 606-607.
Bank of Alexandria, 208, 431, 535.
Bank of Columbia, Georgetown, 222-—
223, 535, 536; refusal of, to dis-
count the city paper (1799), 329.
Bank of the Metropolis, Washington,
518, 5386-537, 617.
Bank of Potomac, 432-433, 535.
Bank of United States, Philadelphia,
plan of, attributed to Samuel Blod-
gett, Jr., 196 n.; branch of, estab-
lished in Washington, 432; banks
created to take place of, upon ex-
piration of charter, 535.
Bank of Washington, 433, 535-536.
Banks, anxieties of, as to effect of
the assumption of the government
of the District, 431; establish-
ment of private, in District, 432—
433; creation of, about 1811, 535—-
538.
Baptist Church, in Potomac region,
87; progress of, in the District,
408-409, 604-605.
INDEX
Baptists, organization of General Con-
vention of, for foreign missions,
604 n.
Barbecue given by Morris and Nichol-
son, 280.
Barlow, Joel, 54, 240; takes up resi-
dence in Washington, 580; activ-
ities of, in Washington, 582-583;
appointed minister to France,
583; death, 583 n.
Barnett, George E., ‘‘The Printers,”
cited, 598.
Barney, Captain Joshua, 620; gallant
conduct of, against British, 625—
626.
Barron, Commodore James, 568 n.
Barry, James, Washington merchant,
247, 248, 292, 434; chosen to posi-
tion of school trustee, but declines,
A479; gift of ground and building to
- Catholics by, 603.
Barry’s Chapel, 603.
Bathing facilities, the first public, in
Washington, 517 n.
Bayard, James A., Jr., publication of
Federalist newspaper in Washing-
ton announced by, 590.
Bayard, Samuel, clerk of Supreme
Court, 370.
Beall, Alexander, captain in Maryland
Provincials, 66.
Beall, Brooke, 73.
Beall, George, original proprietor, 58—
59, 83, 101, 109.
Peall, Lloyd, mayor of Georgetown,
275 n., 596 n.
Beall, Ninian, advancement of Presby-
terian Church in Potomac region
by, 82-83.
Beall, Thomas, 73, 109, 135 n., 137;
an incorporator of Georgetown
Mutual Insurance Company, 337.
Beall, Thomas Brooke, 101.
Beall’s Levels, original patentee of,
50; location of tract, in regard to
present city of Washington, 52-53.
Beatty, Charles, 101.
Beatty, Dr. Charles A., 324 n.
Beckley, John, clerk of house and
librarian of congress, 426.
Belair, estate of Joel Barlow, 582.
Benevolent Society, Washington, 542 n.
Bennings, William, 492 n.
Beverly, Robert, an incorporator of
Georgetown Lancaster School So-
ciety, 484 n.
Bible Society of the District of Colum-
bia, organization of, 601.
Bickley, Robert S., winner in Blod-
gett’s hotel lottery, 229-230.
voL.I—2T
641
Bladensburg, Md., development of,
as an early centre of trade, 58;
inclusion of, in federal district
found impracticable, 134.
Bladensburg, battle of, 625-626;
results in killed and wounded, 628;
adverse comments on conduct of
American militia at, 633.
Blagden, George, chosen school trus-
tee, 479; director of Washington
Bridge Company, 506 n.
Blake, Dr. James H., 324; chosen
mayor of Washington, 468; quoted
concerning Sunday markets, 488-
489; mayor during impending
British attack, 615.
Blodgett, Samuel, Jr., 164; one of
incorporators of Georgetown Bridge
Company, 171; visits Boston to
negotiate loan on city property,
187; account of career of, 187-—
189; buys tract of land in District,
189; appointed superintendent in
charge by District commissioners,
193-194; plan submitted by, for
capitol building, 196 n.; additional
investments of, in city lots, 204—
205; lotteries organized by, 205-
208; first president of Bank of
Columbia, 223; loss of confidence
of commissioners and of General
Washington in, 226-227; the
Federal Lottery No. 2, 227-230,
283-285, 288, 333-334; considera-
tion of character of, 228; ruin of,
by lottery scheme, 229-230; in-
terest of, in a naticnal university,
253; fire insurance company
started by, 433, 563; imprison-
ment of, for debt, 553; funds for
national university solicited by,
553-554; death of, 554; varying
estimates of, 554 n., 555.
Blodgett Hotel building, bought for
use of government, 528, 555 n.,
631 n.
Boarding houses, homes of congress-
men in, 379-380, 518, 574.
Boat line between Washington and
Alexandria, 305.
Bollman, Enrick, emissary of Burr
arrested for treason, 584.
Bond, Beverly W., ‘‘State Government
in Maryland,” cited, 92.
Book, the first, relating to District,
written by Lear, 221-222.
Bookseller, the first, in Washington,
336.
Book stores, early, 383, 435, 436.
Borrows, Joseph, 408 n.
642
Borrows, Sarah, 408 n.
Botanic garden established by Colum-
bian Institute, 514 n. ~
Boudinot, Elias, president of Continen-
tal congress, 10; quoted on location
of permanent seat of government,
1?
Boundary Street, laying out of, 255.
Bourne, Sylvanus, 235.
Bowie, Washington, Georgetown mer-
chant, 593.
Boyd, Washington, member of survey-
ing force of District, 299-300;
tax collector and later treasurer of
Washington, 421, 468, 469, 546 n.;
succeeds Daniel Carroll Brent as
marshal, 572 n.
Boyle, C., 583 n.
Brackinridge, Rev. John, Presbyterian
minister, 232, 601.
Braddock, General, routes followed by
expedition of, 65-66.
Braddock’s Rock, 65-66, 219.
Bradford, Colonel John, 81.
Bradley, Abraham, Jr., assistant post-
master-general, 350; impressions
of city of Washington, 353-354;
cited, 438; director of Washington
Library Company, 521 n.; owner
of Chevy Chase, 573.
Bradley, Joseph H., quoted on Samuel
Blodgett, 555.
Bradley, Phineas,
Clover Hill, 573.
Breckinridge, John, attorney-general,
cited, 507 n.
Brent, Daniel Carroll, marshal of
District, 411, 422; appointed col-
onel in District militia, 565; re-
signs from militia, 572.
Brent, George, 169.
Brent, J. C., work by, cited, 52, 85.
Brent, Robert, 85; justice of the peace
for Washington County, 411;
length of service as mayor of Wash-
ington, 467; paymaster-general of
army and judge of orphans’ court,
467; elected school trustee, 479;
president of Columbia Manufac-
turing Company, 529 n.; president
of the Patriotic Bank, 537; an
English observer’s opinion of, 573-
574; house built by, at Maryland
Avenue and 12th St., 574.
Brent, William, 85, 411; secretary of
Eastern Branch Bridge Company,
427; clerk of circuit court, 455,
555; chosen school trustee, 479.
Brewer, John, quoted, 53.
Breweries in Washington, 291, 525.
residence of, at
INDEX
Bricklayers’ organization in Washing-
ton, 598-599.
Bridges, over Rock Creek, 189-190,
242-243, 359-360, 493; over the
Potomac, 243, 491-493; the Upper
and Lower, 336-337; across Poto-
mac at foot of Maryland Avenue,
493, 497, 502, 505-507; projects
for, over the Eastern Branch and
the Potomac, 426-430; irritation
in congress over discussion of
Potomac bridge, 441; across Poto-
mac below the Little Falls, 491-—
492; across the Eastern Branch,
492; over the Tiber, 531; destruc-
tion of, at time of British invasion,
626-627.
Briggs, Isaac, 164 n., 209, 240.
British, holding up of the Chesapeake
by, 568; manceuvres of, in Chesa-
peake and Delaware bays during
War of 1812, 612 ff., 618; march
of, on Washington and burning of
public buildings, 618-628; de-
struction of private houses by, 627—
628; subsequent danger from,
but final retreat, 630; recovery
of Washington from _ invasion,
631-632.
Broad Creek Church, 81.
Brockett, F. L., work by, cited, 214.
Bromley, Joseph, school trustee, 479.
Brown, Arthur §., work by, cited, 66.
Brown, Glenn, ‘‘ History of the United
States Capitol,’ cited, 194, 201;
quoted, 195 n.
Brown, Dr. Gustavus, 324 n.
Brown, Rev. Obadiah B., pastor of
First Baptist church, 604.
Brown, Dr. Samuel, 324 n.
Brown and Snowden, newspaper pub-
lishers, 369.
Browne, A. S., “Rise of Protestant
Episcopal Church in District of
Columbia,’’ cited, 81.
Buck, Rev. Charles E., sermon by,
cited, 604.
Buckner, John, 408 n.
Building association, the
Washington, 433-434.
Building materials, securing of, for
federal city, 231.
Building regulations,
Washington,
changes in, 278.
Bundy, Charles 8., ‘‘History of the
Office of Justice of the Peace,’’
cited, 410.
Burnes, David, owner of property on
site of federal district, 124-125,
first, in
for
later
issue of,
162-163 ;
INDEX
128, 129, 133, 1385 n.; opening of
Pennsylvania Avenue postponed
on account of crops of, 276; death
of, 327; estate left by, 556;
daughter of, married to John P.
Van Ness, 570-571.
Burnes, Marcia, 570-571.
Burnside, Helen W., sketch by, cited,
300 n.
Burr conspiracy, echoes of, in Wash-
ington, 584-586.
Burrows, Colonel W. W., first com-
mandant of Marine Corps, 371, 406.
Burying grounds in Washington, 335,
607-609.
Busey, 8S. C., ‘‘Pictures of City of
Washington,” cited, 414, 603 n.
Bussard, Daniel, 484 n.
Butler, Rev. C. M., sermon by, cited,
603.
Cc
Cabinet of the United States, The,
early Georgetown newspaper, 367;
objections voiced by, to marines
at polling places, 373; end of, 434.
Cabin John Run creek, 274 n.
“Cadmus,” Dr. Thornton’s
dissertation, 201.
Caffray’s Spring, Washington, 559.
Caffry (Caffray), Rev. Mr., minister
of St. Patrick’s Church, 232, 559 n.
Caldwell, Elias B., clerk of Supreme
Court, 370; mentioned, 414 n.;
president of canal company, 500;
recording secretary of Bible So-
ciety of District of Columbia, 601;
house of, occupied by Supreme
Court after British invasion, 632.
Canal, projected and begun, to connect
Tiber and St. James creeks, 151,
191, 242; the Washington City,
242, 493-495, 499-501; built by
Potomac Company at Great Falls,
274-275.
Canal Lottery No. 1, 288.
Cannon foundry above Georgetown,
BEBE
Capitals, plan of having two, 16-17, 18.
Capitol building, advertisement of
premiums for plans for, 187; plans
submitted for, but not approved,
195-196; list of competitors,
195 n.;
plan, 197; ceremonies at laying of
corner-stone of, 213-214; dis-
charge of Hallet, and appointment
of Hadfield to supervise work on,
241-242;
executive departments relative to,
prize
Dr. Thornton’s successful | Carroll,
question of location of | Carrollsburgh,
643
306-307, 308; progress of work on,
313; discussion of charge that
plans of capitol were not Thorn-
ton’s work, 315-318; question
concerning vignette of, used by
City of Washington Gazette, 317-
318; appropriation for providing
furniture for, 340; condition of,
at time of first meeting of congress
in Washington, 377-378; appro-
priations by congress for comple-
tion of, 449-450; length of time
taken for finishing, 450; descrip-
tion of new south wing, 453-454;
meeting places of senate, Supreme
Court, and circuit court in, 454-
455; condition of, in 1810-1812,
456; religious meetings in house
of representatives, 606-607 ; criti-
cism of unfinished state of, by editor
of National Intelligencer (1813), 618;
burning of, by British, 618, 627;
erection of building as a temporary
capitol, 636-637.
Capitol Hill, desirability of, for public
buildings, pointed out by L’En-
fant, 136.
Capitol Hill Market, 487.
Capitol Hill Tavern, 292.
Carr, Overton, original proprietor of
land in federal district, 135 n.
Carroll, Charles, of Carrollton, family
of, and land held by, 51-52; men-
tioned, 573, 625; Washington
house of, called Bellevue, 573.
Carroll, Daniel, appointed commis-
sioner of federal district, 120-121;
qualifications of, for position, 121-
122; resignation of, from board of
commissioners, 255.
Carroll, Daniel, of Duddington, house
erected south of capitol site by,
164; pulling down of house of, by
L’Enfant, 166-167; lots purchased
of, by Greenleaf, 219; seizure by, of
buildings put up by Morris and
Nicholson, 280-281; character-
istics of, 281 n.; hotel structure
erected by, 312, 519; two houses
erected on Delaware Avenue by,
343; president of Washington
Bridge Company, 506 n.;_ pros-
perous financial condition of, 556.
Rey. John, first Catholic
bishop in America, 84-85; George-
town College begun by, 90-91; offi-
ciates at dedication of new St.
Patrick’s Catholic Church, 605.
proposed settlement
called, 59-60.
644
Casanove, Peter, mayor of George-
town, 275 n.
Catholic Church, progress of, in the
Potomac region, 84-86; first
church edifice of, in District, 232-
233; progress of, in Washington,
602-603.
Cemeteries in District of Columbia,
335, 607-609.
Census figures, of District in 1800,
355-356; of Washington in 1803
and 1807, 466.
Centinel and Country Gazette, 284.
Centinel of Liberty and Georgetown
Advertiser, 284; lottery drawings
announced in, 333, 334; notice in,
of removal of seat of government
to Washington, 357 n.; changed
to the Museum and Washington
and Georgetown Advertiser, 368.
Centre House Inn, 517.
Centre Market, 486, 516; called
Marsh Market, 487 n.; agitation
for stopping Sunday market at, 488.
Chain bridge across Potomac, 492.
Chalmers, John, rope factory of, 527.
Charles County, Md., original extent
of, 45.
Cheese presented to President Jeffer-
son, 576.
Chesapeake affair, 568.
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,
69.
Chevy Chase, estate of Abraham Brad-
ley, 573.
Child of Pallas, Baltimore weekly
journal, 366 n.
Christ Episcopal Church, beginning of,
233; in 1800, 382; arrangement as
to pew-holding in, 601; mentioned,
602 n.
Churches, of upper Potomac region,
81; organization of first, in Wash-
ington, 232-233; in Washington
in 1800, 382; period of develop-
ment and expansion from 1801
to 1813, 599-606.
Church services in Washington in
1800, 382.
Churchyards as burial places, 607.
Cincinnati, Society of, 14, 25.
Circuit court of District of Columbia,
401; first meeting, and organiza-
tion of, 413; sessions of, held alter-
nately in Washington and Alex-
andria, 422; character of cases
brought before the, 425; meeting
place of, in Washington, 455;
first meetings of, after British inva-
sion, 632.
INDEX
Circulating libraries in Washington,
436.
City hall built by L’Enfant in New
York City, 22, 26.
City lots in Washington, first sale of,
150 ff.; second sale of, 204-205;
third sale of, 213; sale of, in 1800,
362; sales of, after removal of
seat of government to Washington,
415-416; later sales of, 510-511.
City of Washington Gazette, question of
authorship of vignette of capitol
used by, 317-318.
Clark, Allen C., cited on the Abraham
Young mansion, 55 n.; ‘‘Green-
leaf and Luw in the Federal City,”
cited, 144, 215, 216, 218, 221, 233,
245, 249, 258, 257, 291, 293, 321,
434,
Clark, Appleton P., Jr., ‘‘Origin of the
Building Regulations,”’ cited, 163.
Clark, Joseph, in charge of ceremonies
at laying of corner-stone of capitol
building, 213.
Clarke, Daniel, 414 n.
Clay, Henry, 456.
Clerks of circuit court of District of
Columbia, 413, 414; location of
office of, in Washington County,
414.
Clermont, voyage of the, 581.
Clover Hill, home of Phineas Bradley,
573.
Cluss, Adolf, address by, cited, 315.
Coast defences, building of, 332.
Cockburn, Rear Admiral, commander
of British fleet in War of 1812, 612,
618, 620, 626.
Collins, John, competitor for premium
for best plan of president’s house,
195 n.
Columbia Lodge of Masons, 617 n.
Columbia Manufacturing Company,
Washington, 529-530.
Columbia Road in Alexandria County,
building of, 533.
Columbia Typographical Society, or-
ganization of, 598.
Columbian Academy, Georgetown, 90.
Columbian Advertiser and Commercial,
Mechanic, and Agricultural Gazette,
370 n.
Columbian Agricultural Society of
Georgetown, 596.
Columbian Chronicle, Georgetown
newspaper, 224, 264, 284.
Columbian Fire Engine Company,
Washington, 558.
Columbian Foundry,
of, 333.
establishment
INDEX 645
Columbian Institute, Washington, Washington to live in the city, 287;
514 n. troubles of, with Law over fee
Columbian Insurance Company of
Alexandria, 564.
prerpee Library, Georgetown, 301,
22.
Columbian Mirror and Alexandria
Gazette, early District newspaper,
95, 303 n.
Columbian Repository,
weekly, 587 n.
Columbian Turnpikes, the company
of, 532-533.
Colvin, J. B., journalist and lawyer,
588-589.
Colvin’s Weekly Register, 588.
Commercial Company, Washington,
formation and career of, 528-529.
Commissioners of federal district,
appointment of Thomas Johnson,
Daniel Carroll, and Dr. David
Stuart as, 120-122; dealings of
General Washington and, with pro-
prietors of lands wanted for federal
city, 124-145; John M. Gantt
appointed secretary and William
Deakins treasurer, 145; sales of
city lots by, 150 ff., 204-205, 213,
362, 415-416; duties of, super-
visory, 163; compensation for
services, 163 n.; headquarters of,
in Georgetown, 165; troubles
between L’Enfant and, 165, 169,
173 ff.; beginning of opposition
to, 178-179; governmental powers
of, exercised in issue of liquor
license and opening of streets, 191—
192, 285; closer attention to busi-
ness of the city found necessary by,
193; experiment tried by, of ap-
pointing a superintendent in charge,
193-194; interest of, in Blodgett’s
lottery scheme, 205, 207, 208;
retirement of Johnson and Stuart
as, 211, 287; auditing of accounts
of, 224; use of letter-head ‘* Wash-
ington City”’ by, 226; repudiation
of Blodgett’s lottery scheme by,
228; appointment of Gustavus
Scott and Dr. Thornton as, 237-—
238; new régime begun by, in the
way of closer personal attention
and more method, 238—239; resig-
nation of Daniel Carroll and
appointment of Alexander White,
255; controversy between Thomas
Johnson and, over matter of water-
front lots, 256; troubles with the
Greenleaf-Morris syndicate, 256—
259, 279, 319 ff.; requested by
Georgetown
simple title to lots, 295; crisis
reached in affairs between Morris
and Nicholson and, 295-296; con-
troversies between Davidson and
Walker and, 296-297; troubles
of, with laborers, 322; decisions
of, concerning use of reservations,
325-328; abolition of board, 417.
Cone, Spencer H., 605.
Congress, efforts of different states to
become permanent residence of,
2 ff.; idea of jurisdiction of, over
its permanent seat, 7-8, 15-16;
threatened by mutinous continental
soldiers at Philadelphia, 8-11;
removal of, to Princeton, Annapolis,
Trenton, and New York, 11-12;
hopes of the southern states re-
garding a site on the Potomac, 16,
29; plan for two capitals, 16-17,
18; last four years of the conti-
nental, spent at New York City,
22; removal of the new, to Phila-
delphia, 26, 27; trading in, over
location of permanent seat, 28 ff. ;
final passage and provisions of
residence bill, 38-39; power of
exclusive legislation in federal dis-
trict conferred on, 41; account of
the bargain or compromise relative
to site of permanent seat, 41-43;
application to, for financial help
for federal city, 259, 264-265;
discussion of matter of loan by, and
final passage of bill granting sup-
port, 266-270; observations of
foreign travellers on indifference of,
to prosperity of Washington city,
270; removal of, to Washington,
339; local observance of first
assembling of, in Washington, 374—
375; first meetings of, in capitol
building, 377; accommodations
for members of, 380; discussion of
District government bill in, 397-
398; passage by, of ‘‘act concern-
ing the District of Columbia,”
399-401; library of, 426, 636;
troubles of, over local affairs of
District, 440-442; retrocession res-
oalutions voted down by, 441, 448;
debates in, on retrocession resolu-~
tions, 444, 447-448; corporate
government provided for Wash-
ington by, 445-446; appropria-
tions by, for completion of capitol
building, 449-450; complaints by
citizens of District concerning
646
shortcomings of, 473-474; dis-
crimination shown by, in treatment
of Washington and Alexandria,
545; standing committee of, on
District of Columbia, 545-546;
rejection by, of proposals to remove
seat of government from Wash-
ington after burning of public
buildings, 634-635 ; building
erected for accommodation of
(1815), 636-637.
“‘Congressional messes,’’ 380.
Congressmen, homes of, in Washing-
ton, 379-380, 518, 574; funerals
and burial places of, 607-609.
Coningham, Dr., partner of Greenleaf
in brewery business, 291, 323, 525.
Conococheague River and valley, 108,
113.
Conrad, Michael and John, booksellers,
595.
Conrad and McMunn, boarding house
of, 379-380, 404, 407.
Contract system, adoption of, by com-
missioners, 243.
Conway, Richard, 337.
Coolidge, Samuel J.,
519 n.
Cooper, William,
seller and partner
Dinmore, 588, 589 n.
Corcoran, Thomas, 101; appointed
justice of the peace for Washington
County, 410; mayor of George-
town, 596 n.
Corcoran, W. W., 101.
Corner-stone, laying of first, of District
boundary, 142-143; laying of, of
bridge across Rock Creek, 190 n.;
of president’s house, 204.
Corporate government provided for
Washington, 445-446.
Council for city of Washington, elec-
tion to, 466-467 ; meeting place of,
in the capitol, 472; later meeting
places, 472 n.; provides design
for seal for city of Washington,
472; printing of ordinances of,
474; action of, in regard to provi-
sion for schools, 474-475; news-
paper criticism of, 524.
Counties, along the Potomac River,
44-45; division of District of
Columbia into, by law of 1801, 401.
Courts, provided for District by law of
1801, 401; Jefferson’s appoint-
ments to, and meeting and organi-
zation of, 412-414; levy court of
Washington County, 420-421;
United States district court for the
hotel keeper,
Washington book-
of Richard
INDEX
Potomac district, 423-424. See
Circuit court.
Craik, Dr. James, 324 n.
Cranch, William, 220 n., 221, 279,
415; appointed trustee of Green-
leaf holdings, 321; associate judge
of circuit court of District, 402,
413; service as commissioner of
Washington, 413 n.; chief justice
of circuit court, 455, 584; elected
school trustee, 479; president of
Washington Benevolent Society,
542 n.; honored career of, 556;
sells Washington house and removes
to Alexandria, 573.
Cranch, Mrs. William, 349.
Craven, John, an incorporator of Co-
lumbian Library, 522 n.
Crawford, William, hotel keeper, 520.
Cresap, Captain Michael, 75, 76.
Crocker, Dr. John, 232 n., 283; close
of career of, 323-324; house of, 350.
Cumberland, Md., beginnings of, 64.
Cummins, Ebenezer H., newspaper
publisher, 595-596.
Custis, George Washington Parke,
oration delivered by, at funeral
services of James M. Lingan, 593;
Arlington Sheep Shearing held
under auspices of, 597; pamphlet
by, on possibilities of improvement
in use of land, 597.
Cutler, Rev. Manasseh, ‘Life,’ cited
and quoted, 576, 600, 606, 607,
608, 610.
Cutts, Richard, 629.
D
Dalton, Tristam, 221; address to
President Adams by, 348-349; ap-
pointed to board of city commis-
sioners by President Adams, 415.
Dancing assemblies in Washington,
292-293, 381.
Daniel, John M., Jr., 484 n.
Darnall, Henry, early landholder, 52.
Darnall, Thomas, 55.
Daveiss, Joseph H., Federalist, and
United States district attorney of
Kentucky, 585.
Davidson, James, cashier of Washing-
ton branch of Bank of United
States, 432.
Davidson, Samuel, 144, 146; first
protest of, against alleged changes
from L’Enfant’s plan, 296; resi-
dence of Evermay owned by, 573.
Davis, Gideon, bookseller, and li-
brarian of Washington:Library, 522.
INDEX
Davis, John, hotel keeper, 517 n.
Davis, Madison, “History of the City
Post-Office,” cited, 262; ‘Old
Cannon Foundry,”’ etc., cited, 333.
Davis, W. A., ‘‘Laws of District of
Columbia,”’ cited, 336.
Davis Columbian Calendar, 617.
Davis Tavern, 517 n., 635, 636.
Deakins, Francis, 74 n., 77, 337; chair-
man of committee to receive
President Adams, 348.
Deakins, Leonard, 74 n., 77.
Deakins, William, 73, 74, 75, 78.
Deakins, William, Jr., 74 n., 104, 109;
correspondence of Washington with,
relative to location of federal city,
123, 125, 127, 128; chosen treasurer
of board of commissioners of federal
city, 145; one of incorporators of
Georgetown Bridge Company, 171;
interest of, in Blodgett’s lottery
scheme, 205; an incorporator of
Bank of Columbia, 223.
Dearborn, Henry, secretary of war,
house occupied by, 406.
Deeds of trust executed by original
proprietors of District land, 145.
Delaware River, proposal to locate
permanent seat of government on
the, 16-17.
Dempsie, John, chosen school trustee,
479.
Deneale, George, appointed clerk of
circuit court for Alexandria County,
413; clerk of United States district
court for the Potomac district, 423.
Dennis, William H., ‘Orphans’ Court
and Register of Wills,’’ cited, 401 n.
Dent, George, marshal of the Potomac
district, 423.
Departments, question of location of,
in capital, relative to capitol build-
ing, 306-307; removal of, from
Philadelphia to Washington, 350—
353; expenses incurred by em-
ployees of, for removal to Washing-
ton, 352-353.
Dermott, James R., surveyor employed
at Washington, 210 n., 211, 240;
discharge of, 300.
Detroit, influence of Washington plan
shown in laying out of, 210 n.
Dick, Dr. E. C., 324 n.; appointed
coroner in Alexandria County, 424.
Digges, William Dudley, L’Enfant’s
last years spent at home of, 183.
Digges Point, purchase and occupation
of, by United States government,
569-570.
Dinmore, Richard, boarding school
647
opened by, 336; newspapers pub-
lished by, 368, 586; ‘‘Select and
Fugitive Poetry” by, 435 n.;
issues Washington Expositor, 588;
death of, 588 n.
Diplomatic corps, in Jefferson’s ad-
ministration, 574; absence of, in
season of 1814-15, 630.
District of Columbia, choice of, for
permanent seat of government, 17,
38-40; description of region of, 44—
70; location of, by President Wash-
ington, 119-120; commissioners
appointed for, 120-123; survey of,
and purchase of lands for, 123 ff.;
announcement of bounds of, and
objections of original proprietors
to extent of, 137-139; laws
enacted by Maryland relating to
(1791), 169-171; commissioners’
report on agricultural conditions in
and about, 171-173; first law
relating to, to be enacted by Vir-
ginia legislature, 208; census statis-
tics for, in 1800, 355-356; prob-
lem of form of government for,
378-379, 387-401, 439-445, 463 ff. ;
provisions of law of 1801, 400-401;
division of, into Washington and
Alexandria counties, 401; abolition
of board of commissioners, 417,
450; retrocession of, advocated as
a solution of political problem
presented by, 440-448, 463-464;
territorial form of government
proposed for, 442, 443, 445, 447;
distinction kept clear between
form of government for, and for
the towns in the District, 473-474;
appointment of congressional stand-
ing committee on the, 545-546.
See Washington, D.C.
District court, United States; for the
Potomac district, 423-424.
Doctors, the earliest, in Washington,
324,
Doorkeepers of congress, houses given
over to use of, 487.
Dorsey, Ella L., ‘‘Sketch of James
M. Lingan,”’ cited, 411.
Dorsey, William H., 299; member of
committee to receive President
Adams, 348; judge of orphans’
court, Washington County, 403,
414; succeeded as judge of or-
phans’ court by Robert Brent, 467.
Doynes, Mrs., boarding-house keeper,
580.
Duane, William, book store and
printing office of, 435, 436, 516, 595.
648
Duckett, Allen B., appointed associate
judge of circuit court of District,
455. %
Duddington’s pasture, original patent
for, 49; later ownership of, 50-51.
Duels fought in vicinity of District,
a2:
Dumbarton Avenue Methodist Church,
87.
Duncanson, William Mayne, investor
in Washington real estate, 245;
house built, lots purchased, and
unsuccessful business established
by, 293; losses of, through Green-
leaf syndicate, 321-322, 556; ferry
kept by, 501 n.
Dunlop, James, 102, 337.
Dunlop's Maryland Gazette, 96.
Dunn, James C., ‘‘Georgetown,”’ cited,
470.
Duvall, Gabriel, elected school trustee,
479.
Dyson, Captain 8S. T., 630.
E
East Capitol Street, opening of, by
Washington city government, 523.
Eastern Academy, Washington, open-
ing of, 481-482; location of, and
cost of building, 482.
Eastern Branch, early estimate of
value of, as a harbor and place of
trade, 151; project for bridge
across, in 1801, 426-427; construc-
tion of Lower and Upper bridges,
492; destruction of bridge across,
at time of British invasion, 626.
Eastern Branch Bridge Company, 427.
Eastern Branch Hotel, 292, 310.
Eastern Branch Market, 486.
Education, early conditions relative to,
88-91; provision for, in District of
Columbia, 301-302, 335-336, 382 n.;
efforts to establish system of public,
474-485.
Election of 1800, tensity of feeling over,
372-374.
Eliot, Samuel, 220 n.;
Washington Bridge
507 n.
Ellicott, Andrew, first topographic map
of District by, 63 n., 144-145;
appointed to survey bounds of
federal district, 125-126; sketch
of career of, 126-127; progress in
work of, and laying of first corner-
stone of District boundary, 142-
143; estimate of, as to Eastern
treasurer of
Company,
INDEX
Branch as a harbor, 151; quoted
on L’Enfant, 167; quoted on
farm lands on south side of Poto-
mac, 173; L’Enfant’s plan com-
pleted for engraving by, 173-176;
Washington’s opinion of, 184;
drawing of city plan as completed
by (1792), 184-186; suggestions
of, looking to bettering L’Enfant’s
plan of city, 192-193; difficulties
between commissioners and, 209;
appointment as surveyor of road in
Pennsylvania, 209-210; ability
and skill of, 210; causes of friction
between commissioners and, 210—
211.
Ellicott, Benjamin, 127, 152-153, 156,
166, 209, 240; introduces sugges-
tion of Washington plan in laying
out of Buffalo, 210 n.
Ellicott, Joseph, 127, 240.
Elliot, Jonathan, printer of Washing-
ton City Gazette, 594.
Elliot, Rev. Robert, elected principal
of Eastern Academy, 481, 485 n.
Elliot, William, publisher of Washing-
ton City Gazette, 594.
Episcopal Church, development of,
in Potomac region, 81 ff.; first
church building of, in District, 233 ;
in the District after 1803, 603-604.
Erskine, David M., British minister in
Washington, 574.
Evermay, Davidson residence, 573.
Ewell, Dr. James, 628.
Ewell, Dr. Thomas, 492, 530. |
Executions in District of Columbia,
551-552.
Executive departments,
location of,
306-307.
Expositor,
586.
question of
relative to capitol,
Alexandria semi-weekly,
F
Fairfax County, Va., creation of, 45.
Fairfax Parish, establishment of, 82.
Fairs in Maryland and Virginia in
early times, 60-61; public, in
Washington (1804-1806), 520-521.
Falls Church, Fairfax Parish, 82.
Fares on early stage lines, 363.
Farmers’ Bank of Alexandria, 535.
Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank,
Georgetown, 617.
Farming lands in vicinity of District,
report of commissioners concern-
ing, 171-173.
Faw, Abraham, 397 n.
INDEX
Faw, Jonathan, 424 n.
Federal Lodge of Masons, 617 n.
Federal Lottery No. 2, Blodgett’s,
227-230, 283-285, 288, 333-334.
Federal Republican, Baltimore news-
paper attacked by Republicans
(1812), 590-591; removal of pub-
lication office to Georgetown, and
continued troubles over, 591-592.
Federal Spring, Washington, 559-560.
Federalist, Washington. See Washing-
ton Federalist.
Federalist party, defeat of, in election
of 1800, 373-374; bitterness of
feeling in, toward Madison and
War of 1812, 590 ff.
Female Benevolent Society of George-
town, 5438; board of directors,
543 n.
Fendall, Philip Richard, 189; elected
president of Bank of Alexandria,
208 n.
Fenwick, Bennet, 313.
Fenwick, George, 209, 241.
Fenwick, Joseph, 330.
Fenwick, Mason & Co., firm of, 330.
Ferguson, Rev. W. M., cited, 602.
Ferry, the lower, at foot of South
Capitol Street, 242; the George-
town, 493; from Maryland Avenue
to Alexander’s Island, 501.
Findlay, Jonathan S., school principal
and librarian of Washington Li-
brary, 522.
Finlay, Rev. Samuel, 89.
Fire companies, organization of,
District of Columbia, 557-559.
Fire company, the first Washington,
287.
Fire insurance companies,
tion of, 433, 563-564.
Fires, in Washington in 1800, 384-
385; rarity of, in early Washing-
ton, 556; provision for protection
against, 556-559.
First Baptist Church of Washington,
organization of, 408.
First Presbyterian Church, Washing-
ton, 601.
Fiske, John, cited, 4.
Fitshugh, Nicholas, appointed asso-
ciate judge of circuit court of
District, 455.
Fleete, Henry, early explorer of locality
of District of Columbia, 47.
Floyd, William, 5.
Footways, appropriation for making,
in Washington, 340; contracts
made for laying, along Pennsyl-
vania Avenue, 358.
in
organiza-
649
Force, Peter, notes of, quoted, 367 n.
Foreign representatives, proposed
donation of sites for residences for,
277, 328; in Washington during
Jefferson’s administration, 574; ab-
sence of, from Washington at time
of British invasion, 630.
Forrest, Uriah, 77, 100-101, 109, 135 n.,
329; dinner to Washington at
residence of, 133; a protestant
against unexpected area of federal
city, 138, 144; one of incorporators
of Georgetown Bridge Company,
171; charged with being at bot-
tom of trouble over dismissal of
L’Enfant, 179; an incorporator of
Bank of Columbia, 223; mayor of
Georgetown, 275 n.; an _ incor-
porator of Georgetown Mutual
Insurance Company, 337; member
of committee to receive President
Adams, 348; President Adams
entertained by, 349; appointed
clerk of circuit court for Washing-
ton County, 413; sketch of career,
413; death of, and poor financial
condition of estate, 455, 555.
Fort Mifflin, fortifications at, erected
under charge of L’Enfant, 182-183.
Fort Washington, L’Enfant’s work at,
183; fortification of, in 1808, 569-
570; called Fort Warburton, 570 n.;
repair of, upop British advance on
Washington, 613; blown up and
abandoned, 630; restoration of, 635.
Foster, Sir Augustus, English specta-
tor of Jefferson’s second inaugural,
458; manuscript by, 574 n.; cited,
578, 579, 603.
Fountain Inn, John Suter’s, 159.
Four Mile Run, bridge over, 532, 533.
Fourteenth Street, opening of, by
Washington city government, 516.
Fox, Cephas, 408 n.
Foxall, Henry, manufacturer of ord-
nance, 332-333; an incorporator
of Georgetown Lancaster School
Society, 484 n.
Franchise, qualifications for exercise
of, in Georgetown and Alexandria,
446.
Franchise restrictions on citizens of
Washington, 471-472.
Franklin Fire Insurance Company of
Washington, 564.
Franklin House, 292, 380, 520.
Franklin Park, springs in, 560.
Franklin Press, the, 435 n.
Franzoni, Giuseppe, Italian sculptor
employed ou capitol, 454.
650
Frederick County, Md., creation of,
45; division of, during Revolu-
tionary War, 77-78. a
Freeman, Rev. Adam, Baptist minister,
408.
Freeman, Thomas, surveyor, 241;
quoted in connection with uses of
reservations, 254.
Free negroes, ordinances designed to
control, in Washington, 547-549;
percentage of, to white population
in Washington and Maryland, 548 n.
Free-school laws in Virginia and Mary-
land, 88-89.
French, George, an incorporator of
Columbian Library, 522 n.
French and Indian War, echoes of,
in Potomac country, 64-66.
Friend of the People, Richmond news-
paper, 367.
Fulton, Robert, experiments of, with
steamboat and submarine torpedo,
580, 581; visits of, to Washington,
581, 582.
Funding of national debt, connection
between bill in reference to, and
final location of permanent seat of
government, 41-43.
Funerals of congressmen, 607-608.
Funk, Jacob, original proprietor, 59.
G
Gales, Joseph A.,
lisher, 365.
Gales, Joseph, Jr., president of Wash-
ington Humane Society, 542 n.;
buys the National Intelligencer,
587 n.
Gales and Seaton, firm of, 587 n.,
588.
Gallatin, Albert, Washington home of,
as secretary of treasury, 406;
cited, 432 n., 536.
Gant, Thomas, Jr., 74.
Gantt, Dr. Edward, 324 n.
Gantt, John M., 137; chosen secre-
tary of board of commissioners of
federal district, 145; clerk for
recording land deeds, 170, 414; one
of managers of lottery scheme, 205;
admitted as attorney by circuit
court of District, 414 n.
Gardening, early interest in, 597.
Gentleman’s Pocket Remembrancer
for the Year 1813, 617 n.
Georgetown, as a commercial centre,
92, 93, 96-102; leading men of,
100-102; character of residential
newspaper pub-
INDEX
portion of city, 102; Masonic lodge
in, 102-103; notable social occa-
sions in, 103-104; advantages of
vicinity of, as a federal seat, set
forth in written address to Wash-
ington, 109; attention given to
site of, by Jefferson and Wash-
ington, 118-119; Washington’s
proclamation of inclusion of, in
federal district, 119-120; visit of
Washington to, to discuss matters
with landowners, 131-133; prop-
osition to include, within limits
of federal city, 139; the base of
supplies for builders of new city,
and headquarters of commissioners,
164-165; as a market for tobacco,
172; newspapers in, 224, 436,
586-587, 589-590; early predic-
tion of incorporation of, with
Washington, 273; observations of
foreign travellers on, 273-274;
progress in growth of, 275; list of
mayors, 275 n., 596 n.; Columbian
Library of, 301; physicians at,
324 n.; opening of theatre in, 334;
visit of President Adams to, 348;
population in 1800, 355, 356; stage
lines to (1800), 363-364; objection
by people of, to proposed bridge
over Potomac (1801), 428-430;
voting qualifications in, 446; salary
of mayor of, 468 n.; system of
taxation in, 470; first public school
in, 476; matter of a Sunday market
in, 489; Sunday restrictions in,
489-490; objections in, to building
of Washington canal, 495-498;
paving of roadways in, 509 n.;
control of tobacco trade by, 524-
525; banks of, 535; provision for
care of the poor in, 540 n., 543;
power of levy court over taxation of,
547; night watch in, 549 n.; pro-
vision for fire protection in, 557;
publication of the Federal Repub-
lican in, 590-591; Methodist
Church in, 603; Episcopal Church
in, 603-604; proposal to remove
seat of government to, after British
destruction of public buildings
in Washington, 634.
Georgetown-Bladensburg Road, 61-62.
Georgetown Bridge Company, in-
corporation of, 171; construction
of bridge by, 243; notice issued
by, calling for payment of instal-
ments, 290; description of bridge
built by, 290-291; condition and
prospects of, in 1801, 430-431.
INDEX
Georgetown College, 85, 90-91.
Seb seal Commercial Company,
29.
Georgetown Lancaster School Society,
incorporation of, 484.
Georgetown Mutual Insurance Com-
pany, formation of, 337.
Georgetown Weekly Ledger, early news-
paper, 94, 224.
German church in Georgetown, 409.
Germans, anticipated settlement of,
in vicinity of Georgetown, 87 n.
Germantown, Pa., proposed as seat
of permanent government, 33-34.
Gerry, Elbridge, 17.
Gibbs, George, ‘‘ Memoirs of Adminis-
trations of Washington and
Adams,’’ quoted, 341.
Gill, John, 337.
Gillespie, Congressman James, burial
place of, 608.
Gillies, Dr. James, 324 n.
Gilpin, George, appointed judge of
orphans’ court of Alexandria, 412;
appointed harbor master in Alexan-
dria County, 424.
Gird, Henry, Jr., newspaper editor,
303 n.
Glass manufacturing in Washington,
531.
Gleig, ‘‘The Subaltern in America,”
cited, 628 n.
Gordon, George, early landholder, 58.
Gordon, Thomas, ‘‘History of New
Jersey,’’ cited, 182.
Government property, freedom of,
from taxation in Washington,
471.
Grassi, Father, Superior of Jesuits,
quoted, 602-603.
Graveyards about churches, 607.
Great Falls, canal built by Potomac
Company at, 274-275.
Great Hotel, Blodgett’s,
528, 555 n., 631 n.
Green, Charles D., an incorporator of
Columbian Library, 522 n.
Green, Jonas, printer and publisher,
95.
Greenleaf, James, first appearance
of, in Washington affairs, 214-215;
real estate transactions of, 215-222,
234-237, 243 ff., 256-259; erection
of buildings by, 233; brewery
business started by, 291; news-
paper war between Nicholson and,
297; imprisonment and_bank-
ruptcy of, 298; duel between
Captain Duncanson and, 321; re-
duced circumstances of, 556.
205, 228,
651
Greenleaf Point, earthwork fortifica-
tions at, 616.
Guide books to Washington, first, 617.
H
Habersham, Postmaster-general, on the
location of the Washington post-
office, 345.
Hadfield, George, architect appointed
to take charge of work on capitol
building, 242; commissioners’ diffi-
culties with, due to determination to
change plans, 259-260; discharge
of, 314; charges against, 315;
buildings in Washington designed
by, 317; architect of Washington
County jail, 544 n.
Hagerstown, Md., 108; reception given
Washington by citizens of, 112, 119.
Hallam, O. B., ‘‘One Hundredth Anni-
versary of Washington Parish,’
cited, 233.
Hallet, Stephen, plan submitted by, for
capitol building, 195 n., 196; em-
ployed to render Thornton’s plan
of capitol practicable and to erect
the building, 203; discharge of,
241.
Hamburg, town site of, 59; price per
acre of land acquired in, for
federal district, 125.
Hamilton, Alexander, quoted, 2; men-
tioned, 5; the possible originator
of idea of jurisdiction of congress
over the permanent seat, 15-16;
agreement arranged by, concerning
funding bill and residence bill, 41—
43; asks L’Enfant to prepare
devices for new coinage, 180; in-
terest of, in manufacturing metrop-
olis projected at falls of the Pas-
saic, 182.
Hamilton, Paul, secretary of the navy,
580, 627 n.
Hancock, Md., proposition to locate
seat of government at, 38.
Hanson, Alexander C., editor of Federal
Republican, 590; elected to congress
and to United States senate, 591.
Hanson, Samuel, publisher of Colum-
bian Chronicle and cashier of Bank
of Columbia, 284.
Harbaugh, Leonard, builder of bridge
across Rock Creek, 189, 190, 243;
contracts for public buildings taken
by, 314; builds later bridge across
Rock Creek (1800), 360.
Hargrove, Rev. Mr., minister of New
Jerusalem Church at capitol, 606.
652
Harper, K. N., ‘‘History of the Grand
Lodge and of Freemasonry in
District of Columbia,”’ cited, 103.
Harper, William, suit of, to enforce
issue of commission as justice of
the peace, 410; director of Wash-
ington Bridge Company, 506 n.
Harriott, John, ‘‘Struggles through
Life,”’ cited, 335.
Harrison, Richard, bill of, for expense
of removal to Washington, 352-
goat
Hartshorne, William, 337.
Havre de Grace, burning of, by British,
612.
Hawley, Rev. William, funeral dis-
course by, cited, 570.
Heath, Nathaniel K.,
facturer, 527.
Heister, Daniel, funeral of, 607.
Hepburn, David, gardener, 598.
Herbert, John, nominated judge of
orphans’ court, Alexandria County,
403; appointment not carried out
by Jefferson, 412.
Herrman, Augustine, map of, 48.
Herty, Thomas, secretary of Washing-
ton Building Company, 433.
Hewitt, John, appointed register of
wills for Washington County, 412;
admitted as attorney, 414 n.;
director of Washington Library
Company, 521 n.
Hibben, Henry B., ‘‘ Navy-yard, Wash-
ington,”’ cited, 526.
Highways, across Alleghany range,
46 n.; in region of District of
Columbia in early days, 61-63;
from Washington to outside points,
515-516, 532-535.
Hill, Frederick T., ‘‘The Story of a
Street,” cited, 23.
Hines, Christian, ‘‘Early Recollec-
tions of Washington City,’’ 347.
Hive, Washington weekly paper, 589,
590.
Hoban, James, wins premium for best
plan of president’s house, 194-195 ;
sketch of career, 194 n.; character
of design of, 195; in charge of work
on the Great Hotel, 260; captain
of first Washington militia com-
pany, 293; market house removed
from President’s Square by, 420;
structure for temporary accommo-
dation of house of representatives
erected by, 420; Latrobe’s pro-
posed improvement on plan of,
for president’s house, 460.
Hodgson, Joseph, owner of house
rope manu-
INDEX
leased to government and destroyed
by fire, 351, 385.
Hollander, J. H., ‘‘Financial History
of Baltimore,’’ cited, 60.
Holmeads, the, early landholders, 53-54.
Holmead, Anthony, 109, 135 n.
Holt, Theodore, horticulturist, 597 n.
Hommedieu, Ezra L., cited, 11.
Hood, Zachariah, stamp distributer, 71.
Hooe, Robert T., auditor of accounts
of commissioners, 224; incorpora-
tor of Marine Insurance Company
of Alexandria, 337; suit brought
by, to secure commission as justice
of the peace, 410.
Hopkinson, Francis, criticism of two-
capital plan by, 18.
Hornet, launching of the, 526.
Horse racing in District, 304; races
of Washington Jockey Club, 609-
611.
Horticulturists, pamphlets and adver-
tisements of early, 597.
Hospital, erection of a, on Judiciary
Square, 232; purchase of, for a
poor house, 421, 451.
Hotel building, principal prize in
Blodgett’s lottery scheme, 205,
206; progress made in work of
construction, 260; bought by
government for post-office depart-
ment, 528, 555 n., 631 n.
Hotei lottery, Blodgett’s, 205, 229-231.
Hotels, the first, within limits of federal
city, 261; later structures in
Washington and Georgetown, 279-
280, 292-293, 312-313, 343-344;
at time of removal of congress to
Washington, 380; in 1804-10, 516—
520; precarious existence of early,
518; in 1815, 635-636.
Hotel Spring, Washington, 559.
House of representatives, descrip-
tion of first meeting place in Wash-
ington (1800), 378; temporary
structure for accommodation of (the
““Oven”’), 420, 453; oath of office
administered to President Madison
in, 461, 612; Sunday religious
meetings in hall of, 606-607.
Houses, number of, in Washington
in 1800, 355.
Howe, Charles E., work by, cited, 209.
Hoyt, John W., ‘‘The National Uni-
versity,”’ 253 n.
Hughes, George W., report by, cited,
429.
Humane Society, Washington, 542 n.
Humphrey, Richard L., letter of,
quoted, 570 n,
INDEX
Hunt, Rev. James, school opened at
Bladensburg by, 90.
Hunter, Naisworthy, first congressman
to die in Washington, 607.
Hutchinson, William, early patentee
of land in Potomac region, 50.
I
Impartial Observer and Washington
Advertiser, first Washington news-
paper, 263-264; existing copies of,
264 n.; end of, 282.
Imprisonment for debt, rigor of laws as
to, in District of Columbia, 552-
553.
Inauguration, Jefferson’s first, 404-
407; Jefferson’s second, 457-458;
Madison’s first, 460-462; Madi-
son’s second, 612.
Inauguration ball, the first, 461-462;
second, in 1813, 612.
Incorporation of Washington, 445-446.
Independent American, triweekly news-
paper, 587 n.
Indian Queen Hotel, 517 n., 539, 563 n.
Indians, traces of, in the Potomac
region, 46-48.
Indian trade, the, 572 n.
Insurance Company of North America,
starting of, 188.
Insurance companies, formed in
Georgetown and Alexandria, 337;
organization of fire, in 1809 and
later, 563-564.
Intelligencer. See National Intelli-
gencer.
Irish as laborers in Washington, 500 n.
Irving, Washington, visits of, to
Washington, 571, 578-580; quoted
on Washington life, 578, 579-580.
J
Jackson, Francis J., British minister
in Washington, 574, 575.
Jackson, Joshua, fire in house of, 384.
Jackson, Richard P., ‘History of
Potomac Lodge,”’ etc., cited, 103.
Jails, early Washington, 286, 422, 544.
James, William, director of Washing-
ton Library Company, 521 n.
James Creek, bridges across, 493.
Janson, Charles W., ‘‘The Stranger
in America”’ by, 618 n.
Jefferson, Thomas, effort of, to have
congress meet at Alexandria, Va.,
18 n.; cited concerning disap-
pearance of Indians from Potomac
region, 46-47; shares Washing-
653
ton’s views as to improvement of
Potomac, 68; free-school law
framed for Virginia by, 88; writes
out his views of method of carrying
out residence law, 117-118; out-
line plan for federal city made by,
129-131; letter from, to Washing-
ton, commenting on price of land
for federal district, 135; present at
auction sale of city lots, 159; in~
terest of, in Samuel Harrison
Smith, 365-366; printing of
manual of, 366; election of, to
presidency in 1800, 374; custom of
sending message to congress by
secretary established by, 379;
quarters of, on arrival as vice-
president in Washington, 379-380;
inauguration of, as president, 404—
405; social duties fulfilled by,
in president’s house, 405; com-
missions executed by Adams with-
held by, 409-410; first District
appointments by, 410; personal
interest of, in management of city
affairs, 418; entertained at dinner
in Alexandria, 423; letter to
Latrobe appointing him surveyor
of public buildings, 450, 451;
plan of, for improvement of
Pennsylvania Avenue, 456-457;
description of second inaugural of,
457-458; at inauguration of Madi-
son, 462; president of board of
Washington school trustees, 479,
480; organization of District mili-
tia by, 565; criticism of, for not
wearing a uniform while reviewing
militia, 566; principle of equality
observed by, in social affairs, 575—
576; troubles between Merry,
British minister, and, 577; cus-
toms as to dress, 577; library of,
purchased by congress, 636.
Jesuits in Maryland, 84.
Jockey Club, Washington, 609-611.
Johns, Thomas, 75.
Johnson, Joshua, brother of Thomas
Johnson and father-in-law of John
Quincy Adams, 347; President
Adams at house of, 349.
Johnson, Thomas, prominent Mary-
land citizen, a director of Potomac
Company, 68; activities of, during
Revolutionary period, 77; on
Georgetown as a market for to-
bacco, 97; appointed commis-
sioner of federal district, 120-121;
notice of distinguished career of,
121; report of, on farm lands in
654 INDEX
and about District, 171-172; re- 422-423; additional compensa-
tires from position as commissioner, tion asked by, 424 appointed
211, 237; controversy between
commissioners and, over water-
front matter, 256; nominated
chief judge of circuit court of
District by President Adams, 402;
declines to serve, 412.
Johnson, Thomas, Jr., clerk or secre-
tary of board of District com-
missioners, 170; first postmaster
of Washington, 170 n., 261;
death of, 262.
Johnston, George, 71.
Johnston, W. D., ‘‘History of Library
of Congress,’’ cited, 426, 521.
Jones, Walter, 397 n., 424 n., district
attorney, 584, 585.
Jones, William, secretary of navy, 614,
629, 636 n.
Jones Point, laying of corner-stone of
District boundary at, 142-143;
erection of fortifications on, 332.
Judges of courts of District of Colum-
bia, created by law of 1801, 401;
nominations of, by President
Adams, 402-403; holding back of
commissions by Jefferson, 409-410.
Jurisdiction of congress over the per-
manent seat, origin of idea, 7-8, 15-
16; objections raised to propo-
sition of, 21; Madison’s justifica-
tion of, 22; confirmation of con-
gressional power of, 41; exercise
of, 397-401.
Jusserand, J. J., address by, cited, 24.
Justices of peace, office of, established
for District by law of 1801, 401;
nominations for, by President
Adams, 402; number of, reduced
by Jefferson, 410.
K
Kalorama, estate of Joel Barlow, 240,
582; leased by French minister,
583.
Key, Francis Scott, house of, 102, 413;
an incorporator of Georgetown
Lancaster School Society, 484 n.
Key, Philip Barton, 102 n., 413-414;
head of congressional standing
committee on District of Columbia,
545; succeeded as congressman
by Alexander C. Hanson, 591.
Key of Keys (Quay of all Quays), 66,
219.
chancellor of Maryland, 455.
King, Nicholas, surveyor, 300, 418 n.;
founder of first Washington library,
300-301; chosen school trustee,
479.
King, Robert, surveyor, 300; plan of
Washington by, 318 n.; returns
to England, 418.
King, Robert, Jr., 300; in charge of
survey of city lots and certifying
of levels, 362; accompanies father
to England, 418; cited, 438.
King, William R., hotel keeper, 519 n.
Kingston, N. Y., application of, for
permanent seat of government, 4-5.
Knox, Rev. Samuel, 90.
L
Laborers in Washington, settlement
of troubles with, by commissioners,
322; hours and wages of, 322 n.
Labor organizations in Washington,
598-599.
Laird, John, 101-102, 484 n.
Lancaster, Pa., invitation to locate
seat of government at, after burn-
ing of public buildings in Washing-
ton, 633-634.
Lancaster school, in Georgetown, 476,
484; opened in Washington, 484.
Langworth, John, earl'y landholder, 50.
Latrobe, B. H., reports by, quoted,
376-377, 495; description by, of
capitol building in 1800, 377-378;
appointed surveyor of Washington,
418 n.; appointed surveyor of
public buildings, 450-451; previous
activities of, as architect and
-engineer, 451; runs afoul of
Thornton by criticising plan of
capitol, 451-452; ability and merits
of, 452; length of public service,
452; reports by, on progress of
work on public buildings, 457 n.;
improvements in plans of presi-
dent’s house and of capitol build-
ing proposed by, 460; engineer of
Washington canal, 499; plan of
navy-yard by, 526; interest of,
in introducing steamboats on the
Potomac, 538; estimate of Samuel
Blodgett by, 554 n.; directs work
of erection of monument to naval
heroes, 569.
Kilty, William, appointed chief judge | Latrobe, John H. B., ‘‘The Capitol and
of circuit court of District, 412;
charge of, to grand jury, quoted,
Washington,” cited, 315.
Laurie, Rev. James, president of
INDEX
Washington Library Company,
521 n.; Presbyterian pastor in
Washington, 599-600; vice-presi-
dent of Bible Society of District of
Columbia, 601 n.
Law, John, quoted on aspect of
Washington city in 1796, 285 n.
Law, Thomas, investments of, in
Washington real estate, 244-247;
residence of, at Greenleaf Point,
278; backer of sugar factory in
Washington, 292, 304; building
operations of, 311, 343; long
course of litigation by, 321; an
incorporator of Anacostia Bridge
Company, 336; prologue to play,
written by, 361; ‘‘Observations
on the Intended Canal in Washing-
ton City,”’ quoted, 449 n.; financial
condition of, about 1809, 556.
Lawrence, Captain James, 617.
Lear, Tobias, Washington’s private
secretary, 115, 116; quoted on
hopes of Philadelphia to remain
permanent seat of government,
140-141; quoted in connection
with engraving of L’Enfant’s plan,
155-156; quoted in connection
with price of lots in federal city,
161 n.; resignation of, as Washing-
ton’s secretary, 201; embarks in
mercantile life in Washington, 220—
221; first book relating to District
written by, 221-222; failure of,
415; appointed commercial agent
at St. Domingo, 415 n.
Lee, Charles, attorney-general, bill
for expense of removal to Wash-
ington, 352; counsel for Adams
appointees not commissioned by
Jefferson, 410; admitted as at-
torney in Alexandria, 424 n.
Lee, Edmund I., 424 n.
Lee, General Henry (‘Light Horse
Harry’’), 231; severely injured by
Republican mob in 1812, 591.
Lee, Richard Bland, 28, 33, 43; quoted,
40 ; member of commission in charge
of rebuilding of public edifices,
636.
Leland, Rev. John, cheese presented
President Jefferson by, 576 n.;
discourse of, at Sunday religious
meeting in house of representatives,
606.
L’Enfant, Pierre Charles, engaged by
New York City to design and
construct meeting hall of con-
gress, 23; description of career
and characteristics of, 23-26; ap-
655
pointed by Washington to pre-
pare plan of federal city, 125-126;
instructions issued to, 127-128;
early suggestion as to treatment of
land for city plan, 135-136;
plans of European cities secured
for, 141 n.; studies of, for plan of
city covering larger area intended
by Washington, 142; the “‘large
plan” or ‘original plan” of,
submitted to Washington, 147-
150, 176-178; elaborate scheme of
city planned by, 151-152; to carry
out purpose, proposes exclusion
of private landownership for a
time, 152; difficulties with, in
connection with engraving of plan,
155-157; refusal of, to allow plan
to be exhibited at sale of city lots,
157; Washington’s high estimate
of, 157, 167; walls of Daniel
Carroll’s house pulled down by
orders of, 166; quarries bought by,
169; events leading directly to
dismissal of, 173-175; criticism
by, of engraved map made from
his incomplete plan, 177; begin-
ning of opposition to board of
commissioners with dismissal of,
178-179; letter of regret from
property holders to, 179; question
of compensation for services, 180;
declines Hamilton’s invitation to
design new coins, 180; story of the
Robert Morris house, 181; plans
drawn by, for manufacturing me-
tropolis on the Passaic, 182; subse-
quent professional engagements of,
and last years, 182-183; provision
for bridges, post road, and canal in
plan of, 491; posterity’s praise of,
508 n.
Lenox, Peter, 311.
Lenthal, John, clerk of works under
Latrobe, 452, 453 n.
Levees, held by President Adams, 382;
abolished by Jefferson, 575-576;
revived by Madison, 578.
Levy court of Prince George County,
local government for early Wash-
ington found in, 285.
Levy court of Washington County,
421; deprived of power to tax
innabitants of city of Washington,
471, 546.
Levy courts, provisions made for
judges of, for Washington and
Alexandria counties, 402-403.
Lewis, H. C., Washington journalist,
589.
656
INDEX
Lewis, Joseph, Jr., speech by, cited, 429. | Lotteries, organized to help progress
Liancourt, Duke de la Rochefoucault,
in Washington, 270, 272, 273, 274;
description of Georgetown bridge
by, 290-291.
Libraries, in Alexandria and George-
town, 301; circulating, 436; early
Washington, 300-301, 521-522.
Library, of congress, 426; purchase of
Jefferson’s, to replace congressional,
burned by British, 636.
Library Company, Alexandria, 301.
Lighting of Washington streets, 419,
509.
Lindo’s Tavern, 533 n.
Lindsay, George W., hotel keeper,
517 n.
Lingan, James M., early landholder, 54,
109, 135 n., 329; collector of port
of Georgetown, 96; a protestant
against unexpected area of federal
city, 138, 144; one of incorporators
of Georgetown Bridge Company,
171; an incorporator of Bank of
Columbia, 223; an incorporator of
Georgetown Mutual Insurance
Company, 337; member of com-
mittee to receive President Adams,
348; nominated for marshal of
District by President Adams, 402;
fails to receive commission from
Jefferson, 411; killed by Repub-
lican mob in 1812, 591; national
furore over murder of, 591; public
funeral honors in memory of, 592-
593; burial place of, 593 n.
Liquor, sale of, prohibited on Sunday,
in Washington, 490.
Liquor license, first, issued in city of
Washington, 191.
Literary Visitor, Georgetown periodi-
cal, 589.
Little, John, bill of, for expense of
removal to Washington, 352.
Little Falls, bridges across Potomac
below the, 491-492.
Little Hotel, the, 261, 280, 313.
Livingston, Robert R., 581.
Loan, first attempt to negotiate a,
on city property in federal district,
187; negotiation of, from Mary-
land, by Washington authorities
with aid of congress, 265-272;
second, obtained from Maryland,
299; from Maryland in 1799, 329;
sale of city lots to repay Maryland
loan, 510.
Long, Robert, hotel keeper, 519 n.
Lossing, B. J., ‘‘Diary of George
Washington,’’ quoted, 105.
of federal city, 205-208, 288, 289-—
290, 333-334, 480, 493; ordinances
passed by city council for, in 1812
and following years, 550.
Lottery, held for erecting church
building in Georgetown, 88; re-
pudiation of Blodgett’s, by city
authorities, 228; suggestion of a,
for starting a university in Wash-
ington, 480; for building a canal,
493.
Loudoun County,
45.
Love, John, 397 n., 424 n.
Lovell, William, hotel keeper, 344, 380,
517.
Lovering, William, architect and
builder, 278-279, 311.
Lowdermilk, W. H., ‘‘History of
Cumberland, Md.,’’ cited, 64, 67.
Lowndes, Francis, Jr., an incorporator
of Columbian Library, 522 n.
Ludloe, Augustus C., 617.
Lunatics, provision for, in Washington,
544.
Lutheran Church in Georgetown, 86.
Lyon, James, newspaper proprietor,
367, 435-436.
Lyon, Matthew, 367.
Va., creation of,
M
McClean, Archibald, 397 n.
Maclay, William, cited, 34, 42.
McCormick, Rev. A. T., school opened
by, 301-302; discourse by, at first
observance of Washington’s birth-
day, 339; services in war office
building conducted by, 382, 409.
McGrath, Thomas, horticulturist,
597 n.
McGurk, James, execution of, 551.
Mcllvaine, H. R., ‘‘Religious Tolera-
tion in Virginia,”’ cited, 79, 80.
McKenna, James, auctioneer at sale
of Washington city lots, 159.
McKeowin’s Tavern, 635.
McLaughlin, proprietor of Union
Tavern, Georgetown, 520. J
McLeod, James, hotel keeper, 517.
McMaster, J. B., quoted and cited,
3 n., 305, 386, 389 n., 403, 404,
538, 581.
McMunn and _ Conrad’s
house, 379-380, 404, 407.
Madison, James, 8, 10, 14, 28, 34;
on deficiencies of Princeton as a
meeting-place of congress, 13;
on question of the jurisdiction of
boarding
INDEX
congress over the permanent seat,
15; quoted, 16, 29; justification
of the jurisdiction idea by, 22 ; argu-
ment of, on the subject of cen-
trality, 30-31; present at auction
sale of lots in federal city, 159;
proposition of, concerning founding
of a national university, 252;
house in Washington occupied by,
as secretary of state, 406; inaugu-
ration of, as president, 460-462;
turns first sod in work on Washing-
ton canal, 499-500; opening of
bridge across Potomac at Mary-
land Avenue by, 506; social func-
tions during presidency of, 578;
second inaugural of, 612; visit
of committee of citizens to, at time
of British invasion, 623; activities
of, upon arrival of British force,
624, 629; travels of, during occu-
pation of Washington by British,
629.
Madison, Mrs., 462; ‘‘ Memoirs and
Letters,’’ cited, 515; directress of
Washington City Orphan Asylum,
543 n.; social life in Washington
at time of, 578; quoted in connec-
tion with British attack during
War of 1812, 612-613; superin-
tends removal of cabinet papers,
625; escapes from Washington,
629.
‘“‘Madison’s war,’’ 590.
Magruder, A. C., 414 n.
Magruder, Samuel Wade, lieutenant
in Maryland Provincials, 66.
Magruder, William B., postmaster at
Georgetown, 96; an incorporator
of Bank of Columbia, 223.
Main, Thomas, pamphlet by, on use
of hedge plants, 597.
Makemie, Rev. Francis, 80.
Mall, early uses of, 277.
Manufactures, attempts to establish,
in Washington, 524-527, 529-531;
reasons for lack of success, 531.
Map, topographic, of District, by
Andrew Ellicott, 63 n.; of Washing-
ton, 144-145; engraved map, from
Ellicott’s completion of L’Enfant’s
plan, 176. See Plan.
Marbury, William, appointed naval
agent, 331; suit of, to enforce
issue of commission as justice of the
peace, 410.
Marbury vs. Madison, decision of
Supreme Court in, 410.
Marine Band, 371; concerts by, 406;
music by, at services in capitol,
657
606-607 ; addition of Italian musi-
cians, 607.
Marine Corps, headquarters of, estab-
lished in Washington, 370-371 ; plan
and location of barracks for, 372;
objections to appearance of mem-
bers of, at polling places, 372-373.
Market house in Georgetown, lottery
organized to pay for ground for,
289-290.
Market house, Washington, first loca-
tion of, on President’s Square, 419;
removal of, to Market Square, 420;
on New Jersey Avenue, 486; the
Centre Market, 486; Eastern
Branch Market, 486; the Western
Market, 486-487; Capitol Hill
Market, 487.
Markets, agitation against Sunday,
488-489.
Marriages, Maryland tax on, 476.
Marshall, James, nominated associate
judge of circuit court of District
by President Adams, 402; career
of, 412; resignation of, 455.
Maryland, laws enacted by, relating
to District, 169-171; loans to
federal city by, 271-272, 299, 329;
road-building by, 534; progress
in emancipation of negroes in,
548 n.
Maryland Chronicle, early newspaper,
96.
Maryland Gazette, 95, 96.
Maryland Journal and Baltimore Ad-
vertiser, 95-96; announcement in,
relative to city lots, and account
of federal city, 161-162.
Mason, Colonel Armistead T., 629.
Mason, John, 102, 337; merchant and
president of Bank of Columbia,
223, 330; appointed brigadier-
general of militia of District, 565;
retires from militia, 572.
Mason, John Thompson, appointed
attorney for District of Columbia,
411; admitted as attorney by cir-
cuit court, 414 n.
Masons, lodge of, in Georgetown, 102-
103; lodge of, in Alexandria, and
General Washington’s connection
with, 103; laying of first corner-
stone of District boundary by Alex-
andria lodge, 142-143 ; first lodge of,
organized in Washington, 204 n.;
observation of St. John’s Day by, in
building at the capitol, 261; obser-
vance of Washington’s birthday by
Federal Lodge No. 15, 339; lodges
in District in 1813, 617 n.
658
Mathews, Catherine V., ‘‘Andrew
Ellicott,” etc., cited, 143 n., 210.
May, Frederick, 323; director of Wash-
ington Bridge Company, 506 n.
Mayor of Washington, appointed by
the president, 445; service of
Robert Brent as, 467; election of
Daniel Rapine and of Dr. Blake to
office of, 467-468; salary provided
for, 468; office of, made elective,
595.
Mayors of Georgetown, lists of, 275 n.,
596 n.
Meade, Bishop, ‘‘Old Churches, Min-
isters, and Families of Virginia,”
cited, 82.
Mechanics, shortage of, in building
operations at Washington, 231.
Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, 535.
Melish, John, English traveller, on
Washington in 1806, 508 n.
Mercer, George, stamp distributer,
ya
Merchants of Alexandria in 1770, 57 n.
Meredith, Samuel, expenses of, for
removal to Washington, 352.
Merry, Anthony, British minister in
Washington, 574-577.
Methodist Church in Potomac region,
87; growth of, in the District,
601-602.
Metropolitan Hotel, 517 n.
Meyers, Solomon, hotel keeper, 517.
“Midnight Judges,’’ Adams’s, 403,
412-413.
Militia, organization of a, in District
of Columbia (1802), 564-566;
compulsory service in, 566-568;
renewed interest in, during War of
1812, 611; enrolment of, upon
approach of British, 613; unskil-
ful handling of, against British
invaders, 622-624; retreat of,
before British force, 626.
Militia companies in Washington in
1800, 382-383.
Militia company, the first, in Wash-
ington, 293.
Milligen, Joseph, Georgetown book-
seller and publisher, 589.
Mine mentioned in vicinity of the
Great Falls, 172 n.
Mint, site selected for, in Washington,
254.
Mitchell, Dr. S. L., ‘‘Letters from
Washington,” cited and quoted,
500 n., 574, 576, 577, 585, 609, 610.
Monitor, Washington weekly, 588-589.
Monroe, James, secretary of state at
time of War of 1812, 614, 631.
INDEX
Montgomery County, Md., creation
of, 78.
Moore, Cleon, register of wills in Alex-
andria County, 403, 424.
Moore, Henry, 414 n.
Moore, Rev. Jeremiah, Baptist minis-
ter, 408 n.
Moore, Thomas, causeway and dams
built by, 496, 504, 505.
More, Benjamin, merchant and news-
paper proprietor, 282, 283, 303 n.;
secretary of Federal Lodge of
Masons, 339.
Morgan, J. D., ‘‘Robert Brent, First
Mayor of Washington,”’ cited, 411,
467.
Morin, Lewis, house built for hotel
purposes by, 344.
Morris, Maud B., ‘‘Life and Times of
Pontius D. Stelle,’”’ cited, 343.
Morris, Robert, views of, on permanent
seat of government, 31, 34; house
of, in Philadelphia leased for occu-
pancy of Washington, 115-116;
transaction between L’Enfant and,
relative to building of Wash-
ington residence, 181; land pur-
chases undertaken by, in conjunc-
tion with Greenleaf, 216-220, 234;
first visit made by, to new city,
279; hopefulness of, in regard to
Washington real estate, 281; finan-
cial ruin and imprisonment of, 298;
difficulties of commissioners over
lots of, 319 ff.
Morris, Robert, Jr., partner with Foxall
in manufacture of iron and ord-
nance, 332, 333 n.
Morris Village, 465.
Morsell, James S., 414 n.
Mudd, A. L., ‘‘Early Theatres in
Washington City,” cited, 361, 520.
Muir, Rev. James, 143; president of
Bible Society of District of Colum-
bia, 601 n.
Mulligan, Joseph, bookseller, circulat-
ing library of, 521.
Municipal government provided for
Washington, 445-446.
Munroe, Robert, an incorporator of
Georgetown Lancaster School So-
ciety, 484 n.
Munroe, Thomas, postmaster of Wash-
ington, 345; appointed superin-
tendent of city, 346, 417; curious
position of, as to payment of
salaries, 417-418; report of, cited,
457; elected school trustee, 479.
Murdock, Rev. George, 71.
Murdock, William, 71.
—
INDEX
Museum and Georgetown Advertiser,
587 n.
Museum and Washington and George-
town Advertiser, 368, 436.
Musters of District militia, 565, 566,
567-568.
N
National Intelligencer and Washington
Advertiser, establishment of, 90,
365, 366; removal of location of
office, 434; prosperous career of,
435, 587-588; first reports in, of
discussions in congress, 436-437;
published by Gales and Seaton,
587-588; left without competition
in Washington newspaper field,
588; daily edition of, during War
of 1812, 594; office of, burned by
British, 628; resumes publication,
632.
National Magazine, first periodical
published in District, 367, 368.
National Pike, the cld, from Cumber-
land to Wheeling, 46 n.
National university, plan for a, advo-
cated by Samuel Blodgett, 188-189 ;
mention of, in document of commis-
sioners, 222; Washington’s plan
to found, and gift of Potomac Com-
pany shares toward, 251; question
of site for, 251-252; proposition
to sell public lots and use funds for,
511; funds for, solicited by Samuel
Blodgett, 553-554; prospectus of
a, prepared by Joel Barlow, 581.
Naval Lodge of Masons, 617 n.
Naval monument, erection of, 568-
569.
Navy department, establishment of,
in Washington, 351.
Navy yard, site for, 330-331; slow
development of, 331; importance
of, as an industrial centre, 525-
526; erection of monument in,
to Tripoli heroes, 568-569.
Navy Yard Baptist Church, 604-605.
Navy Yard Hill, 525.
Neill, Edward D., ‘‘Terra Mariae,”’
cited, 50.
Nelson, William, ‘‘The Founding of
Paterson,”’ cited, 182.
New Jersey, offers made by, in regard
to securing seat of national capital,
6-7.
New Jersey Avenue, opening of, 523,
524.
New Jerusalem Church, Washington,
606.
Newspapers, the first, in Virginia and
659
Maryland, 93-96; of Georgetown,
224, 436, 586-587, 589-590; first
newspaper published in Washing-
ton (1795), 263-264; in 1796-1797,
283-285; in 1797-1798, 302-303;
of Alexandria, 303, 369, 436, 586;
established in Washington upon
location there of government, 364—
370; letters published in, relative
to District government problem,
388-396; in 1801, 434-436; first
reports in, of discussions in con-
gress, 436-437; from 1807 to
1811, 585-590; rapidity of ap-
pearance and disappearance of,
589; during War of 1812, 590-
596; in 1814, 617.
New Year’s Day observances in Wash-
ington in Jefferson’s time, 576.
New York City, meeting of continen-
tal congress in, 12, 22; plans made
by, looking to securing permanent
seut of federal government, 22-23,
26; feeling in, concerning removal
of federal seat, 106-107.
Nicholls, James B., 337.
Nicholson, John, associated with
Morris and Greenleaf in land spec-
ulation in Washington, 217, 220,
234, 257, 279, 295; newspaper
war between Greenleaf and, 297;
financial ruin, and death of, in
debtors’ prison, 298.
Night watch, provision for, lacking in
early Washington, 548; established
in Alexandria, 548 n.; established
in Washington during fear of British
attack, 615.
Norfolk, Va., foundation and incor-
poration of, 57.
Nourse, Joseph, bill of, for expense of
removal to Washington, 353;
an incorporator of Columbian
Library, 522 n.; places owned by,
573.
O
Oakley, John, collector of port of
Georgetown, 411.
Oberholzer, E. P., ‘‘Robert Morris,”
etc., cited, 181.
Octagon Hcuse, plans for, made by
Thornton, 316, 346; occupied by
French minister, 627.
Oden, Benjamin, original proprietor
of land in federal district, 135 n.
Offices, small number of changes in,
under Jefferson, 439.
Ohio Company, the, 64.
Olio, Georgetcwn weekly, 587 n.
660
O’Neal, William, hotel keeper, 351 n.,
380, 392, 520.
Ordinances passed by municipal gov-
ernments, printing of, 474.
Orme, Archibald, 66.
Orphan asylum, Washington, 543.
Orphans’ court of District of Columbia,
created by law of 1801, 401; first
meeting of, 414.
Osborne, J. B., ‘‘Removal of the
Government to Washington,”
cited, 357.
Ould, Henry, school opened in Wash-
ington under direction of, 484.
Ould, Robert, lLancastrian school
opened in Georgetown by, 484.
Oven, temporary building for house
of representatives called the, 420,
453.
te
Paper manufacturing in Washington,
530-531.
Parkinson, Rev. William, Baptist
minister, 408 n., 409.
Parkman, Francis, ‘‘Montcalm and
Wolfe,” cited, 65.
Parks, William, printer and publisher,
95.
Parrott, Richard, rope walk of, 527;
Georgetown Wool and Cotton
Manufactory started by, 530.
Parrott’s Woods, 593, 596, 622 n.
Paterson, N. J., early plans for manu-
facturing metropolis on site of, 182.
Patterson, Edgar, paper manufacturer,
530.
Patriotic Bank, the, 537.
Patuxent River, British invasion up
the, 618, 619.
Paxton, William M., ‘‘The Marshall
Family,” cited, 412 n.
Paxton Boys, incident of the, 116.
Peacock, Robert W., boarding house
of, 380; admitted as attorney,
414 n.; real estate business con-
ducted by, 434 n.
Peirce, Edward, original proprietor of
land in federal district, 135 n.
Peirce, Isaac, horticulturist, 598 n.
Peircy, James, 292, 304 n., 434.
Pennsylvania, offers made by, to secure
permanent seat of government,
34.
Pennsylvania Avenue, the birthday of,
192; opening of, 276; condition
of, in 1800, 357-358; improvement
of, as carried on by Jefferson, 456—
457; amount spent on, 457; first
inaugural procession to pass up,
INDEX
457-458; progress in work of im-
proving, 508-509.
Pennsylvania House, the, 517.
Perseverance Fire Engine Company,
558 n.
Peter, Major George, 622.
Peter, John, nominated register of
wills for Washington County, 403;
appointment not carried out by
Jefferson, 412; mayor of George-
town, 596, 6238.
Peter, Robert, Georgetown merchant
and mayor, 66, 100, 109, 135 n.,
275 n.; protests against unexpected
area, of federal city, 138, 143-144;
one of incorporators of Georgetown
Bridge Company, 171; houses of,
leased by British ministers, 574.
Peter, Thomas, an incorporator of
Bank of Columbia, 223; house of,
on K Street, 346-347; President
Adams entertained at house of,
349; house called Tudor Place
built for, on Q Street, 572.
Petrie, George, ‘‘Church and State in
Early Maryland,”’ cited, 84.
Petworth, John Tayloe’s, farm, 609.
Peyton, Francis, 397 n.; colonel of
Alexandria County militia, 565.
Philadelphia, affair of the mutinous
soldiers at, 8-11, 14; removal of
congress to Princeton from, 11;
decided upon as the seat of govern-
ment until removal of capital to
new federal district, 38-39, 115;
continued hopes of, to remain per-
manent seat of government, 43;
house built in, for occupancy of
president and plans of, for retaining
seat of government, 116, 139-140;
features of city plan of, favored by
Jefferson, 117; objections from,
to national aid to city of Washing-
ton, 269; yellow fever epidemic in
(1797), 305; removal of depart-
ments to Washington from, 350-
353; resolution providing for re-
moval of seat of government from
Washington back to, 465; efforts
to remove seat of government to,
after burning of public buildings in
Washington, 633-634.
Physicians, earliest, in Washington, 324.
Pickell, John, ‘‘ New Chapter in Early
Life of Washington,” cited, 64, 67.
Pinckney, Charles, submits section
relating to federal district in the
constitution, 20-21.
Piscataway Parish, Md.,
ment of, 81.
establish-
INDEX
Plan of federal eity, Jefferson’s, 129-
131; L’Enfant’s first, 135-136;
Ellicott’s engraved map, 144—
145; L’Enfant’s ‘“‘large plan” or
“original plan,’ 147-150, 176-
178; L’Enfant’s completed plan,
submitted to Washington, 153-
154; completion of L’Enfant’s by
Ellicott, and first map engraved
from, 173-176; changes from that
of L’Enfant shown in drawing com-
pleted in 1792, 184-186; Robert
King’s, 318 n.
Plummer, William, ‘‘Life’’ of, cited,
577.
Policing of Washington, 547-549.
Polk, Charles P., 408 n.
Poor, care of the, in Washington, 540-
544,
Poorhouse in Washington, 541-542.
Pope, Thomas and Francis, early
landholders, 53.
Population, statistics of, in 1800,
355-356; of Washington in 1803
and 1807, 466; increase of Wash-
ington in, 499.
Post-office, establishment and early
years of, in Washington, 261-263 ;
location of, in Blodgett hotel build-
ing, 528, 631 n.
Post-office department, opening of, in
Washington, 350-351; spared by
British invaders, 628, 631.
Potomac Company, the, 29, 32, 64;
chartering of, 68; work accom-
plished by, 69; shares of, given
by Washington toward founding
a national university, 251; prog-
ress of work by, 274-275; volume
of business handled by, 275;
work of, stops on account of lack
of money, 498.
Potomac district, creation of the, 423.
Potomac Flats Case, decision in the,
250.
Potomac Lodge of Masons, George-
town, 204 n., 206 n., 214 n., 617 n.
Potomac River, desire of southern
members of congress to locate
permanent seat of government on,
16, 29; plan to locate a temporary
capital on, 17; improvement of,
to render available for commerce,
29-30; passage of law locating
seat of government on, 38-39;
description of region along the,
44 ff.; exploration of, by Captain
John Smith and by Henry Fleete,
47; need for development of,
recognized by Washington, 63-64;
661
account of early efforts to improve
river for navigation, 67-68; extent
of improvement of, by Potomac
Company, 69; volume of trade on,
70; bridges over the, 243, 427-
430, 441, 491-492, 493, 497, 502,
505-507.
Potomac region, bargain by which fed-
eral seat was secured for, 41-43;
early settlement of lands in, 44;
creation of counties of, 44-45; char-
acter of settlers, 45-46; traces of
Indian inhabitants, 46-48; rich-
ness of country in game and fer-
tility of soil, 48-49; slowness in
rise of towns, 55-56; importance
of tobacco in commercial life of,
56-57; social life, 60-61; effects
of French and Indian War on
country, 64-66.
Potomac Steamboat Company, 538-
539.
Potter, C. E., ‘‘ History of Manchester,
N. H.,”’ cited, 188.
Powder magazines, Washington, 527.
Powhatan Indians, 47.
Prentiss, Charles, newspaper publisher,
366 n.
Presbyterian Church, in the Potomac
region, 82-84; beginnings of, in
District, 232; progress of, 599-
601.
“Presidential palace,’”’ origin of term
with L’Enfant, 149-150.
President’s house, location selected for,
by L’Enfant, 150; premiums ad-
vertised for plans for, 187; pre-
mium for best plan won by James
Hoban, 195; progress in building
of, and laying of corner-stone, 204;
plans prepared for buildings to be
added to, as wings, for use of de-
partments, 306; progress of work
on, 313; use of name White House
for, 313 n.; appropriation for
providing furniture for, 340; in-
complete condition of, upon arrival
of President Adams and family,
376; condition at time of Jeffer-
son’s occupancy, 405; first pub-
lic reception in, Fourth of July,
1801, 406; clearing of grounds
about, and building of fence, 419;
deliberate progress in work of com-
pletion, 458-460; first published
prints of, 617; burning of, by
British, 627.
Price, Captain Thomas, 75.
Prince George County, Md., original
extent of, 45.
662
Princeton, N. J., suggested as seat of
national capital, 4; removal of
congress from Philadelphia to, 11;
deficiencies as a meeting-placé of
congress, 13.
Prince William County, Va., original
extent of, 45.
Printers’ organizations in Washington,
598.
Printing offices in early Washington,
383, 435.
Private banks in District, 432-433.
Private schools in Washington, 485.
Privy pits, prohibition of, 562.
Proprietors of lands within federal
district, 49-56, 146-147.
Proudfit, S. V., collection of stone
implements by, 48 n.
Prout, William, original proprietor,
135 n., 372.
Pumps in early Washington, 562.
Punishments of convicts, nature of,
425.
Purcell, Redmond, charges against
Hadfield by, 315.
Q
Quakers, meeting-house built by, in
Washington, 606.
Quarries bought for material for public
buildings of Washington, 169, 231,
411.
Queen, N. L., hotel keeper, 519 n.
R
Race meetings in Washington, 609-
611.
Ralph, Rev. George, rector of Christ
Episcopal Church, 258, 260; school
opened by, 261; resignation of, to
become principal of Charlotte Hall
School, 302.
Ralston, Alexander, surveyor, 240-241.
Ramsay, Dennis, suit brought by, to
secure commission as justice of the
peace, 410.
Randolph, John, on the clashing
interests in the District, 444.
Rapine, Daniel, bookseller, publisher,
and mayor of Washington, 467-—
468, 595.
Rapine, Conrad, and Co., 383, 435,
436, 516, 595.
Ray, James, 293, 322.
Record office for District, removal of,
to Washington, 360.
Records, storing of government, 528.
Reedy Branch, stream known as, 561.
INDEX
Register of wills for District of Co-
lumbia, created by law of 1801, 401.
Reintzell, Daniel, mayor of George-
town, 275 n., 596 n.
Religious conditions in early Virginia and
Maryland, 79-88. See Churches.
Removal of seat of government to
Washington, death of General
Washington previous to, 338;
acquiescent attitude of congress
toward matter of, and passage of
removal bill, 339-340; issuance of
executive order fixing date of, 341;
Washington at time of the, 342-347,
353 ff., 357-386; expense of
removal of departments, 351-353;
slight notice taken of, in news-
papers, 357; local celebration of
first meeting of congress in new
city, 374-375.
Renner, Daniel,
527 n.
Reports of discussions in congress,
the first, 436-437.
Reservations, designation of the uses
of, 254, 276 ff., 324-829; effect on
property values of proximity to,
463; use of, for agricultural pur-
poses, 511-512, 513-514.
Reservoirs for storing water for use
against fires, 559.
Residence law, origin of, 1 ff.; passage
of, 36-40.
Retrocession of District, first sugges-
tion of, 440; small minority of
congress in favor of, 441; debates
on resolution, 444, 447-448; lead-
ing arguments for, 445, 448; de-
feat of later resolution (1805), 448;
idea of removal associated with,
448; bad effect of agitation, on
land values, 448-449; urged as a
solution of political problem pre-
sented by the District, 463-464;
agitation for, based on inconven-
ience of Washington as a place of
residence, 464-465; causes lead-
ing to retrocession of Virginia
portion of District in 1846, 544-
545.
Rhodes, William, hotel keeper, 313,
380.
Rhodes’ tavern, orphans’ court first
meets in, 414; mentioned, 517.
Richards, Rey. Lewis, Baptist minis-
ter, 408.
Richmond, Christopher, second post-
master of Washington, 262-263.
Richmond, John, school opened by,
301.
rope manufacturer,
INDEX
Ridgeley, Charles, horse owner, 304.
Riley, E. S., “History of Annapolis,”
cited, 5.
re William, newspaper publisher,
95,
Rind, W. A., Georgetown printer, 596.
Ringgold, Tench, rope factory of, 527;
member of commission in charge
of rebuilding of public edifices, 636.
Roads, early conditions as to, in Poto-
mac region, 61-63; building of,
from capital to other cities and
towns, 515-516, 532-535.
Roberdeau, Isaac, 166.
Rock Creek, early settlement of region
along, 49 ff.; bridges across, 189-
190, 242-243, 359-360, 493; early
navigability of, 190 n.
Rock Creek Church Road, 63.
Rock Creek Parish, 81.
Rockville, Frederick County, Md., 73,
Vie) Zest
Rockville Road, the, 63.
Rogers, Charles, 408 n.
Rome, tract of land called, owned by
Pope family, 53.
Rope walks, Washington, 527.
Rosedale, tract of land owned by Uriah
Forrest, 413.
Ross, David, auditor of accounts of
commissioners, 224.
Ross, British general in invasion of
Washington, 626, 627.
Rowland, Kate M., work by, cited, 52.
Rowles, Joseph E., 530.
Rush, Benjamin, quoted concerning
movement to make Princeton the
permanent seat of government, 4;
Fourth of July oration by, 611;
President Madison with, during
British occupation of Washington,
629.
Ss
Sabbath restrictions in Washington,
Georgetown, and Alexandria, 488—
490.
Saddler’s sign in Washington, 500 n.
St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church,
Washington, 382, 599, 600.
St. John’s Catholic Church, Forest
Glen, Md., 85.
St. John’s College, Annapolis, estab-
lishment of, 89.
St. John’s Episcopal Church, George-
town, 88, 603, 604.
St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Washing-
ton, 603.
St. Memim, miniature painter,
Washington, 583.
in
663
St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, Wash-
ington, 382, 559 n., 605.
Sale of city lots in Washington, the
first, 150, 159-163; L’Enfant’s
opposition to plan of, 151-152;
second, 204-205; third, 213; in
1800, 362; after removal of seat
of government to Washington,
415-416.
Sayrs, Rev. John J., 604.
Scharf, J. Thomas, ‘‘History of
Western Maryland,” cited, 56, 76.
Scharf and Westcott, ‘‘History of
Philadelphia,” cited, 196 n.
School, petition for a, in Washington,
226; Rev. Mr. Ralph’s, 261.
Schools, conditions as to, in early
Maryland and Virginia, S8-91;
the first, in the District, 301-302;
increase in number of, 335-336;
in 1800, 382 n.; provision for
public, in Washington, 474 ff.;
board of trustees chosen for, 479;
opening of the Western School and
the Eastern Academy, 481-482;
school heurs, and compensation of
teachers, 483; lack of adequate
funds for maintaining, 483-484;
opening of school on Lancaster
plan, 484; matter of class distinc-
tion in, 484-485.
Scotland Yard, tract of land called, 50.
Scott, Gustavus, 54, 68; appointed
member of beard of commissioners
of federal city, 237-238; residence
bought in District by, 240; builds
and occupies house in District, 287 ;
death of, 413 n.
Scott’s Tavern (Little Hotel), 279-
280.
Seal for city of Washington, provided
by city council, 472.
Seaton, William W., 587 n.
Second Baptist Church, Washington,
604-605.
Sedgwick, Theodore, speaker of house,
380.
Semmes, Joseph M., hotel keeper, 518.
Senate chamber, description of, in
1800, 378; oath of office adminis-
tered to President Jefferson in, 404.
Serurier, M., French minister, 583;
quoted on British invasion of
Washington, 614, 627; in Wash-
ington at time of British invasion,
627.
Seven Buildings, the, 414.
Seventh Street, opening of, 531.
Sewall, Robert, house of, which was
burned by British, 312-313, 626.
664
Shaw, W. S., secretary of President
Adams, 347.
Shea, John G., cited, 47 n., 91.
Shepherdstown, Va., interest of people
of, in securing federal seat, 114, 119.
Shoonmaker, Marcus, ‘‘History of
Kingston, N. Y.,’’ quoted, 4, 5.
Shuck, Frederick, Washington Public
Baths established by, 517 n.
Sidewalks, building of, in Washington,
509; in 1815, 635.
Sidney, 5. H. Smith’s farm, 573.
Simmes, Charles, 414 n.
Simmons, William, bill of, for removal
to Washington, 353.
Sixth Street, opening of, 532.
Slave labor, use of, in building opera-
tions at Washington, 232; atten-
tion given to laborers by commis-
sioners, 323.
Slaves, the District as a central point
for trade in, 425; continuance of
trade in, until abolition from Dis-
trict in 1850, 426; percentage of
population of District represented
by, 448; taxation of, to discourage
sending of, into District, 488; pro-
portion of, to white population and
free negroes in Washington and
Maryland, 548 n.
Smallwood, Samuel N., 323.
Smith, Captain John, explorations of,
up the Potomac River, 47.
Smith, John Cotton, account of city
of Washington by, quoted, 357-
358, 379, 380.
Smith, General Samuel, 372.
Smith, Samuel Harrison, newspaper
publisher, 90, 365; elected school
trustee, 479; director of Washing-
ton Library Company, 521 n.;
farm occupied by, 573; success of
National Intelligencer due to, 587.
Smith, Mrs. Samuel Harrison, impres-
sion made upon, by city of Wash-
ington, 354-355; cited, 379 n.,
380, 381, 382, 405, 406, 407, 462,
573, 580, 624, 629; quoted on Joel
Barlow, 582-583.
Smith, Walter, 75; an incorporator of
Georgetown Lancaster School So-
ciety, 484 n.
Smith, Dr. Walter, 324 n.
Snowden, Alexander, newspaper pub-
lisher, 369.
Social observances under Jefferson,
575-578.
Society and social events in Washing-
ton in 1800, 381-382.
Sons of Hibernia, 500 n.
INDEX
Sparks, Jared, ‘‘ Writings of Washing-
ton,” cited, 133 n.
Speculation in land in federal city,
feared by Washington, 123 n.;
beginning and increase of, 146 ff. ;
transactions of the Greenleaf-
Morris combination, 216-222, 234—
237, 243 ff., 256-259, 278-281;
last days of leading men who lost
through, 553-556.
Spirit of Seventy-Six, semi-weekly
newspaper, 587 n., 589, 590.
Spoils system, absence of changes due
to, in early Washington, 439.
Sprague, W. B., ‘‘American Pulpit,”
cited, 605.
Springs in Washington, 559-560.
Squatters on public reservations, 511—
512, 513-514.
Stage lines, established between Balti-
more and Georgetown, 335; estab-
lishment of, in 1800, 363-364.
Stamp Act troubles in Maryland and
Virginia, 71-72.
“Star Spangled Banner,’ first singing
of, in Washington, 636 n.
Steamboat, Fitch’s invention of, 198;
Fulton’s invention, 580, 581, 582.
Steamboats, the first, on the Potomac,
538-539.
Steiner, Bernard C., work by, cited,
77, 92.
Stelle, Pontius D., tavern keeper, 343-—
344, 519 n.
Stelle’s Tavern, 380; dancing assem-
blies at, 381.
Stephenson, Clotworthy, 383 n., 419-
420, 433.
Stewart, General Walter, 244.
Stinckney, John, nephew of Samuel
Blodgett, 553 n.
Stoddard, John, 109.
Stoddert, Benjamin, merchant and
landowner of Georgetown, 54, 97,
109, 135 n.; account of commer-
cial conditions at Georgetown by,
98-100; house of, 100 n.; corre-
spondence of Washington with,
relative to federal city, 123, 125,
127, 128; a protestant against
unexpected area of federal city,
138, 144; an incorporator of
Bank of Columbia, 223; appointed
secretary of navy, 330; an incor-
porator of Anacostia Bridge Com-
pany, 336; bridge built across
Anacostia Creek at expense of
492; hopes of, concerning George-
town as a trade centre, 497; career
of, ended in debt, 555.
INDEX
Stoddert’s Spring, Washington, 560.
Stone, W. I., map by, 561 n.
Street lighting, 419, 509.
Streets, progress in opening of, in
Washington, 507-509, 523-524,
531-532; payment for improve-
ments, by local tax payers rather
than the general government, 509-
510, 512.
Stretch, Joseph, director of Washing-
ton Library Company, 521 n.
Stuart, Dr. David, appointed commis-
sioner of federal district, 120-121;
qualifications of, for position, 122;
difficulties of, over L’Enfant and
his plan, 157; quoted in connec-
tion with auction sale of city lots,
159, 160-161; report of, on farm
lands in vicinity of District, 172-
173; retires from position as com-
missioner, 211, 237.
Stuart, Gilbert, in Washington, 583.
Sugar factory built in Washington,
292, 304; failure of, 434.
Sumner, W. E., ‘Financier and Fi-
nances of Revolution,” cited, 181.
Sunday, agitation against opening mar-
kets on, 488-48; other legislation
tending to observance of, 489-490.
Supreme Court, removal of, to Wash-
ington, 370; decision of, concern-
ing commissions executed by Adams
but withheld by Jefferson, 410;
meeting-place of, on basement floor
of capitol building, 454-455.
Surveying department of Washington,
list of principal men employed in,
300 n. See L’Enfant and Elli-
cott.
Surveyor of Washington, office of,
created by congress in 1802, 418.
Susquehanna River, rivalry between
Potomac and, for site of permanent
seat of government, 29, 31, 33.
Suter, Mrs., boarding-house keeper,
518.
Suter’s Tavern, Georgetown, 132;
opening of theatre in, 334, 335.
Swann, Thomas, nominated attorney
for District by President Adams,
402; fails of appointment by
Jefferson, 412; admitted as attor-
ney by circuit court, 424 n.
Swartout, Samuel, emissary of Burr
arrested for treason, 584.
ats
Taggart, Hugh T., ‘‘Old Georgetown,”’
cited, 47, 48, 52, 59, 62, 66, 68, 77,
665
101; ‘Presidential
1800,”’ cited, 348.
Taxation, assessment by levy court of
Washington County, 421; rate of,
and amount realized from (1803),
469; discrimination in favor of
unimproved property under early
system of, 469-470; both personal
and real property subject to, 470;
exemptions in Georgetown and in
Washington, 470-471; citizens of
city of Washington relieved from
assessment by levy court of county,
471; freedom of government prop-
erty from, 471; effort to apply part
of proceeds of, to support of public
Journey in
schools, 474-476; of slaves in
Washington, 488; for building
sidewalks, 509.
Tayloe, Benjamin Ogle, ‘‘In Memo-
riam,’’ quoted, 293 n., 304.
Tayloe, John, race horses bred by,
304, 609; Octagon House built by,
316, 346; chosen school trustee, 479.
Taylor, George, 337.
Taylor, Robert I., 424 n.
Tea-duty difficulties in Maryland and
Virginia, 72-74.
Templeman, John, Georgetown mer-
chant, 97; work in connection
with Georgetown bridge, 291;
an incorporator of Anacostia Bridge
Company, 336; house built in
Washington by, 345.
Ten Buildings, the, 311.
Territorial form of government pro-
posed for District, 442, 443, 445, 447.
Theatres, opening of, in and about
District, 334-335; in Washington,
361, 520.
Thespian Benevolent Society, Wash-
ington, 542-543.
Thomas, Isaiah, cited on Washington
and Georgetown papers, 589.
Thompson, George, early iandholder, 49.
Thompson, Jonah, 337.
Thomson, Charles, secretary of con-
gress, 26, 104.
Thornton, Dr. William, author of
accepted plan of capitol building,
197; sketch of remarkable early
career, 197-201; principal achieve-
ments of, 201; establishes resi-
dence in Georgetown, 201-202;
appointed member of board of
commissioners, 237; interest of,
in a national - university, 253;
removes residence to Washington,
288; attends to business of build-
ing two houses in city for General
666
Washington, 311-312; discussion
of charge that plans for capitol
building were not work of, 315-—
318; objections of, to commis-
sioners’ decision to divide triangular
spaces with property holders,
327-328; statement by, relative
to Blodgett’s lotteries, 334; site of
home in Washington, 345; Tayloe’s
Octagon House designed by, 346;
farm and racing stud of, 346;
president of short-lived fire insur-
ance company, 433; Latrobe’s
attack on plan of capitol by, 451—
452; becomes surety for Samuel
Blodgett, 553; Tudor Place de-
signed for Thomas Peter by, 572;
saves post-office department and
patent office from destruction by
British, 628.
Thornton, Mrs., diary of, cited and
quoted, 331, 339, 342, 3438, 345, 346,
349, 350, 358, 361, 362, 371, 376,
377, 378, 381, 382, 624, 629, 630,
631.
Threlkeld, John,
town, 275 n.
Thurston, Buckner, appointed asso-
ciate judge of circuit court of Dis-
trict, 455-456; director of Wash-
ington Library Company, 521 n.
Tiber Creek, 53, 54; bridges across
the, 493; a source of agues and
bilious fevers, 515; course of main
stream and branches, 560.
Times and Alexandria Advertiser, 303 n.,
369.
Times and Potowmack Packet, 94.
Tingey, Captain Thomas, 331, 381 n.;
elected school trustee, 479; com-
mandant of Washington Navy-
yard, 526; sets buildings in navy-
yard on fire, at time of British
invasion, 626.
Tobacco, importance of, in all trans-
actions during colonial period in
Potomac region, 56-57.
Tobacco inspection houses, 56; open-
ing of a house on the Eastern
Branch, 524-525.
Tomlinson, B. H., hotel keeper, 519 n.
Toner, Dr. J. M., oration by, quoted,
324 n.
Towns of Potomac region, growth and
development of, 55-61.
Tracy, Senator Uriah, burial place of,
609.
Trade, early efforts to promote, in
Washington, 491-539.
Trade convention at Annapolis, 30.
mayor of George-
INDEX
Travers, John, hotel of, 261.
Treasury building, site for and build-
ing of, 313-314.
Treasury department, opening of, in
Washington, 351; Federalists
charged with attempt to burn
records of, 384-385.
Trees, early move made for preserva-
tion of, in Washington, 225;
clearing ground of, 295.
Trenton, N. J., assembling of congress
at (1784), 12, 18; locality of,
favored by congress as permanent
seat of government, 16-17.
Trinity Catholic Church, Georgetown,
88.
Trumbull, John, visit of, to site of
federal city, 149 n.
Trustees chosen for Washington school
board, 479.
Tudor Place,
Peter, 572.
Tunnicliff, William, hotel keeper, 292,
310, 519.
Tunnicliff’s tavern (Washington City
Hotel), 310, 519; dancing assem-
blies at, 381; tearing down of, 636.
Turner, Judge George, plan submitted
by, for capitol building, 195 n., 196.
Turner, William, mayor of George-
town, 275 n.
Turnpikes, building of, 515-516, 532-
535.
Turreau,
575.
Twenty Buildings, the, 280-282, 321 n.
Twining, Thomas, English traveller,
quoted, 270, 272-273.
Typographical societies organized in
Washington, 598.
residence of Thomas
General, French minister,
U
Underwood, John, 563 n.
Uniforms of District militia, 566.
Unimproved property, discrimination
in favor of, in Washington system
of taxation, 469-470.
Union and Lebanon Lodge of Masons,
617 n.
Union Bank, Georgetown, 433, 535.
Union Circulating Library, 521, 522.
Union Fire Company of Washington,
558.
Union Tavern, Georgetown, 280, 520.
Union Tavern and Washington Hotel,
344.
United States Theatre, opening of, 361.
Universal Gazette, Samuel Harrison
Smith’s weekly, 365, 366, 370, 589.
INDEX
University, National.
university.
Vv
Vagrants, restriction of, in Washing-
ton, 547, 549-550.
Van Ness, John P., 536-537; sketch
of career and story of marriage
with Marcia Burnes, 570-571; resi-
dences of, 571, 572; prominence
of, in Washington affairs, 572; a
commissioner to have charge of re-
building of public edifices, 636.
Van Ness, Mrs., directress of Washing-
ton City Orphan Asylum, 543 n.
Villard, Andrew J., employee
Washington arsenal, 527.
Virginia, offers made by, looking to
securing seat of national capital, 7;
retrocession of portion of District
to, in1846, 545. See Potomac region.
Virginia Gazette, early newspaper, 95.
Virginia Journal and Alexandria Ad-
vertiser, 93.
Voting qualifications in Georgetown
and Alexandria, 446.
Vowell, Thomas, treasurer of Bible
Society of District of Columbia,
601 n.
at
Ww
Wages of laborers at capitol, 322 n.
Wagner, Joseph, an owner of Federal
Republican newspaper, 590, 591.
Walker, George, 144, 146, 303, 327;
newspaper controversy between
commissicners and, 297.
Ward, George W., work by, cited, 64.
Warden, D. B., ‘‘Chorographical De-
scription of the District,’’ cited, 500,
504, 526 n., 544, 579, 589, 590..
War department, establishment of,
in Washington, 351; fire destroys
records of, 384-385.
Wards, division of Washington into,
468-469.
Ward’s Tavern at Greenleaf Point, 261.
Waring, L. H., work by, cited, 86.
Waring, Marsham, an incorporator of
Georgetown Mutual Insurance
Company, 337.
War of 1812, opening of, 590; bitterness
of political feeling over, 590—594 ; re-
newal of interest in militia due to,
611; expansion of business during,
617.
War office building, Sunday services
held in, 409.
Warren, Admiral, commander of Brit-
ish fleet in War of 1812, 612.
667
See National | War ships, appropriation for, and prep-
arations for building, 330, 331.
Washington, D.C., description of
region where located, 44 ff.; early
patentees of region, 49-55; im-
portant part taken by President
Washington in establishment of,
105; plan of, intended by President
Washington, 106; Washington’s
choice of site for, 119-120; ap-
pointment of commissioners for,
120-121; plans of city, 129-131,
135-136, 144-145, 147-150, 153-
154, 173-176, 184-186; sales of
lots in order to raise funds, 150-152,
159-168, 204-205, 213, 362, 415—
416; real estate speculation in, 216—
222, 234 ff., 256-259, 278 ff.; name
of, substituted for Georgetown in
official letters of commissioners,
226; local government for, aside
from commissioners, the levy court
of Prince George County, 285;
population and appearance in 1796,
285 n.; notable period of building
activity in, 310-314; removal of
seat of government to, 338-353;
impressions of, in 1800, 353-355;
population statistics, 355-356; con-
ditions in, at time of removal of
government, 357-386; question
of government of District and city,
387-401, 439-445, 463 ff.; abolition
of board of commissioners and
appointment of superintendent of
city, 417; corporate government
provided for, 445-446; character
of first city charter, 446; objections
raised to United States represen-
tation in local affairs of, 447;
attempt to establish public school
system in, 474-485; markets in,
486-489; observance of Sunday in,
489-490; unsuccessful efforts to
make city a centre for trade and
business, 491 ff.; increase of, in
population (1800-1810), 499; pro-
vision for care of the poor, 540-544 ;
jail in, 544-545; description of, by
British ministers (1809), 575; burn-
ing of, by British, 626-628; pro-
posed removal of seat of govern-
ment from, after burning of public
buildings, 633-635; recovery of,
from British ravages, 635-637.
Washington, George, quoted concern-
ing mutinous soldiers, 11; on
deficiencies of Princeton as a
meeting-place of congress, 13-14;
letter by, to L’Enfant, 24-25; presi-
668
dent of the Potomac Company, 29,
69; need for development of Poto-
mac recognized by, 63-64, 67, 68;
churches with which identified,
82; master of Alexandria lodge of
Masons, 103; receptions and ova-
tion to, at Alexandria and George-
town (1789), 104; first recorded
utterance of, in regard to federal
seat, 105; style of city planned by,
106; personal inspection of site of
federal seat by, 108-115; un-
easiness of, over plans of Phila-
delphia and Pennsylvania to retain
federal seat of government, 116,
139-140; message of, announcing
choice of site of federal seat, 119-
120; commissioners of federal
district appointed by, 120-122;
arrangements made by, to secure
the property, 123 ff.; visit of, to
Georgetown to talk with land-
owners, 131-133; letter to Jefferson
from, concerning acquisition of
lands, 133-134; boundaries of
proposed city given out by, 137;
revisits Georgetown to reconcile
landowners to larger area of federal
city, 145, 147; decides to hold
public sale of lots, 150; differing
views of L’Enfant and, as to sale
of city lots, 152; high estimate of
L’Enfant’s attainments held by,
157, 167; present at auction sale
of city lots, 159; mediation of, in
stormy episode of Carroll house,
166-167; attends third sale of city
lots and buys four on the Eastern
Branch, 213; at laying of cor-
ner-stone of capitol building, 213-
214; quoted in connection with
Greenleaf’s land ventures, 218, 246;
plan of, to found a national uni-
versity, 251-252; decision of, to
apply to congress for financial
assistance for city of Washington,
264-265; reception given to, in
Washington at termination of
presidency, 293-294; two houses
built by, in Washington, 311-312;
death of, 328; first observation of
birthday of, as a memorial day, 338—
339 ; two houses built by, destroyed
by British, 627; portrait of, saved
by Mrs. Madison from British, 629.
Washington, Lund, steward of Mount
Vernon estate, 263.
Washington, Lund, Jr., third post-
master of Washington, 263; dis-
missal of, 345.
INDEX
Washington, Potomac Steamboat Com-
pany’s vessel, 539.
Washington, Dr. William, 324 n.
Washington, William Augustine, estate
purchased of, by Joel Barlow, 582.
Washington Advertiser, the, 283, 364.
Washington and Alexandria Turnpike
Company, 532 n.
Washington Association and United
States Insurance Co., 433.
Washington Book Store, the, 383.
Washington Bridge Company, 506;
directors of, 506 n.; prosperity of,
507.
Washington Building Company,
pioneer building association, 433—
434.
Washington City Canal, building of,
242, 493-495, 499-500; lottery
organized to complete, 288-289;
course of, 289.
Washington City Gazette, first evening
paper, 594-595.
Washington City Hotel, building of, 310.
Washington College, chartering of, 89.
Washington County, D. C., creation
of, 401 ; city of Washington excepted
from regular taxation system of, 546.
Washington County, Md., creation of,
78; called the garden of Maryland,
108 n.; interest of inhabitants of, in
securing federal district, 113.
Washington Expositor and Weekly
Register, 586, 588.
Washington Federalist, 366-367, 436,
586-587.
Washington Gazette, beginning of, 282;
vicissitudes of fortune experienced
by, 302-303.
Washington Hotel, the, 380, 517.
Washington Library, the, 521-522.
Washington Light Artillery Company,
404, 406.
Washington Parish of
Church, creation of, 233.
Washington Public Baths, the, 517 n.
Washington Repository, the, 382-384.
Washington Spy, 96; quoted on re-
ception given Washington by citi-
zens of Hagerstown, 112.
Watercourses in District of Columbia,
560-561.
Water front of federal city, treatment
of, 248-250.
Water supply of early Washington,
559-563.
Watterston, George, reminiscences of
Washington printed in Intelli-
gencer, quoted and cited, 286 n.,
365, 551, 561; editor of Washing-
Episcopal
INDEX
ton City Gazette, 594; biographical
notice of, 594 n.; first librarian of
congress, 636.
Way, Andrew and George, printing
office of, 517.
Weems, Dr. John, 324 n.
Weightman, Roger C., bookseller, 595.
Weld, Isaac, Jr., ‘‘Travels through
States of North America,’’ quoted,
210; 272; 278.
Wells in early Washington, 562.
Wescott, F. and J. D., newspaper
publishers, 369.
Westcott, Thompson, ‘‘ Historic Man-
sions of Philadelphia,” cited, 141 n.,
199.
Western Market, the, 486-487.
Western School, city of Washington,
opening of, 481; location of, and
cost of building, 482.
Western World, Kentucky newspaper,
585.
Wharf, first corporation, in Washing-
ton, 520.
Wharf regulations in Washington,
troubles with Law and Greenleaf
over, 248-250.
Wheat, Joseph, tavern-keeper, 292.
Whelan, Israel, purveyor of public
supplies, 351.
Whelan, L. W., ‘‘Maryland Local
Institutions,” cited, 55.
Whipping post, use of, in Washington
County, 425.
White, Alexander, 43; appointed
member of board of commissioners
of District, 255; lobbying by, in
interests of congressional aid to
city of Washington, 265-266; sec-
ond visit of, to Philadelphia in in-
terests of loan bill, 307-308.
White, Richard, principal of Western
School, 481, 485 n.
White House, use of name, for presi-
dent’s house, 313 n.
Whiteoak Slashes, the, 561.
Widow’s Mite, tract of land known as
the, 50, 53-54.
Wiley, Rev. David, in charge of
Columbian Academy, 382 n.; an
incorporator of Georgetown Lan-
easter School Society, 484 n.;
editor of Agricuitural Museum and
mayor of Georgetown, 596.
Wiley, John, oration by, in commem-
oration of Captain Lawrence and
Lieutenant Ludlow, 617.
Wilkinson, General James, 423, 584.
William and Mary College, establish-
ment of, 89.
669
Williamsburg, Va., foundation of, 57.
Wilmer, Rev. William H., secretary
of Bible Society of District of
Columbia, 601 n.
Wilson, J. O., ‘‘Eighty Years of Public
Schools of Washington,”’ cited, 482.
Wilson, T., first newspaper publisher
in Washington, 263.
Winder, General, 624, 625, 633;
treats before British force, 626.
Winsor, Justin, ‘‘ Narrative and Criti-
cal History of America,” cited, 65.
Wirt, William, cited, 58; description of
Bladensburg school by, 90; quoted,
Tre-
91 n.; on John Templeman, 291.
Wolcott, Oliver, cited and quoted,
341, 341-342, 353, 375, 385;
secretary of treasury, 351; impres-
sion made by Washington upon, 354.
Wood, John, venal newspaper editor,
585, 588.
Woodley, estate of Philip Barton Key,
413.
Woodward, Augustus B., influence
of, on plan of city of Detroit,
210n.; ‘‘Considerations on the
Government of the Territory of
Columbia,’’ quoted, 381; cited,
387 ff., 438, 463; publication of
essays in the National Intelligencer,
388-389; mentioned, 414 n.; ar-
raignment of congress by, for not
providing a general government for
the city, 463-464; statement by,
as a city councilman, 468.
Woodward, Clement, 146.
Woodward, William, hotel-keeper, 516.
Woodward Tavern, 516.
Workhouse, establishment of, in Wash-
ington, 549-550.
Worthington, Dr. Charles, 324 n.
ne
Yellow fever epidemic of 1797, 305.
Yoast, John, 77.
Young, Abraham, original proprietor,
235:
Young, George, 424 n.
Young, Notley, early landholder, 51,75,
135 n.; a protestant against un-
expected area of federal city, 138,
144; lots purchased of, by Green-
leaf, 219; death of, 467 n.; estate
left by, 556.
Young, Robert, director of Washington
Bridge Company, 506 n.
Young family, original proprietors of
land in District, 51, 55.
Young’s Spring, Washington, 560.
“ it iv Wars Wi ei howe w
oye? ® AP A .
leg ’ Ags
cap \¢ ri 4 Mien et r Tye
tain”: + T weet * aaere yas? rey
ra ae fae serwon't *
i? ee ee vel eee ee
é a 4 I] a se op +f »
wey? i / % re ] a *
oma atid
P Ma +2 mk « the Heniitiey
x. , ty woop fought Ale . bay \
} mR ty cP J : ‘ atlas is é
J bey 74 j rare TC ~waihnipe’! f Matis
: : ‘ Aes i
i ber wd tm , . wis | erty? Py lts
Wd iat Te s' TS A han.
<- a + : ‘ . ‘ i“
; a oy TE AS re a x
on ‘ i . j Ara arta, (Prd Cl
a 4 i ed
pear war -* '
why L , a
, ¥
alge pf of it “geld Mey wecrpie «
' . 7} i |
erry , P :
Wihhe HO Hey
‘ 2 i i pro
+
‘ + Ds dey 4 ‘MMP Vier ov
- . 7 ©
The.
‘j
fe
q P
i a
< i
j
i i ?
n i
+ ; *
wi i)
+
7 ’
‘
ne w
i i" 4038
it)
; iw *
eh ne
‘ he inWte Hatdgigibc ®
; tdgndl * Par Peary er” abe
. Se Ce a
he é a a
} é * wee rove oe wre :
Fi oer Vi el ei \ lod, i
VE) PM “err wa) ‘Serge hi
: (ie bg tea aa
asa ) : aT ES) angie a
ae hiner”, ayn Diweth Forty’
‘ : - : 7 ava a
HE following pages contain advertisements of a
few of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects.
NEW BOOKS OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY
The Writings of John Quincy Adams
Volume III, 1801-1810
Eprrep sy WORTHINGTON C. FORD
Cloth, 8vo, $3.50 net
This, the third volume in Mr. Ford’s remarkable series of Adams's writ-
ings, covers the important years 1801-1810, in which Adams by his inde-
pendent course as United States Senator from Massachusetts, incurred the
opposition of his colleague, Pickering, and for his support of Jefferson’s em-
bargo measure was recalled by his constituents. It marks his expulsion from
the Federalist party, his appointment to a professorship in Harvard College,
his year devoted to the practice of law, and finally his appointment as minis-
ter plenipotentiary to Russia. The letters are rich in personal experiences
and in free comments upon public men and affairs.
The Letters of Richard Henry Lee
Volume IT
CoLLEcCTED, COLLATED, AND EpiITED
By JAMES CURTIS BALLAGH
Published under the auspices of the National Society of the Coloniai Dames of America
Cloth, 8vo, $2.50 net
This, the second and final volume of Lee’s correspondence, contains one
hundred and ninety-one letters drawn, like those in the preceding volume,
from the most varied sources —the Papers of the Continental Congress, the
Arthur Lee Papers, the Adams Papers, the Papers of Henry Laurens and Jef-
ferson and Madison. Most of them have never before been printed. They
are especially abundant for the years 1779, 1780, 1781, 1784, and 1785, but
extend to the year of Lee’s death, 1794. They cast a flood of light, in the
years mentioned, upon the doings of the Continental Congress, upon Lee’s
own political activities and those of his relatives and friends; upon Virginia
politics, upon the foreign relations of the infant United States, and upon the
period when its present Constitution was being formed and put into operation.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
The Hon. DEAN C. WORCESTER’S New Book
The Philippines —.
By DEAN C. WORCESTER
Secretary of the Interior, Philippine Insular Government, 1901-1913
Author of “ The Philippine Islands and Their People,” etc.
2 volumes, Decorated Cloth, Illustrated, Svo, $6.00 net
There is no greater authority on these insular possessions than Mr. Worcester who, as
early as 1887, and again in 1890 was a prominent member of scientific expeditions to the
Islands; from 1899 to 1g01 was a member of the U.S. Philippine Commission; since 1901
has been Secretary of the Interior to the Insular Government, and who in 1899 published
“The Philippine Islands and Their People," a record of personal observation and experi-
ence, with a short summary of the more important facts in the history of the archipelago,
which has ever since been the acknowledged standard work of information concerning the
Islands.
In Mr. Worcester’s valuable new work, past and present conditions are minutely re-
viewed with regard for strict accuracy of statement. The author's position giving him free
access to all the government records, much of the information thus made available has
never been before made public. With practically unlimited material on which to draw in
the way of illustrations, very fine and rare photographs intimately related with the text
emphasize the lessons which they are respectively intended to teach.
The result is a work of the greatest importance as well as of the greatest interest to all
concerned as to the future possibilities of the Philippines and as to the course the United
States Government should pursue in the interest of the several peoples of the Islands.
CONTENTS
Chapter I, — View Point and Subject Matter, Chapter II1.— Was Independence Promised ? Chap-
ter III. — Insurgent ‘‘ Codperation.” Chapter IV. — The Premeditated Insurgent Attack. Chapter
V,— Insurgent Rule and the Wilcox-Sargeant Report. Chapter VI.— Insurgent Rule in the Caga-
yan Valley. Chapter VII.— Insurgent Rule in the Visayas and Elsewhere. Chapter VIII. — Did
We Destroy a Republic? Chapter IX.—The First Philippine Commission. Chapter X.— The
Conduct of the War.— Chapter XI.— The Second Philippine Commission. Chapter XII. —The
Establishment of Civil Government. Chapter XIII.—The Philippine Constabulary and Public
Order. Chapter XIV.— American Governors, Chapter XV.— Health Conditions. Chapter XVI.
— Baguio and the Benguet Road. Chapter XVII,— Coérdination of Scientific Work. Chapter
XVIII. — Improved Means of Communication. Chapter XIX.— Education. Chapter KX.— The
Administration of Justice. Chapter XXI.— Financial Reform. Chapter XXII.— The Philippine
Forests. Chapter XXIII. — Philippine Lands. Chapter XXIV.— Peace and Prosperity. Chapter
XXV.-— Commercial Possibilities of the Philippines. Chapter KXVI.— The Picturesque Philip-
pines. Chapter XXVII. Fish and Game, Chapter XXVIII. — The Exploration of Non-Christian
Territory. Chapter XXIX. The Government of Non-Christian Tribes. Chapter XXX. — The
Government of Non-Christian Tribes (continued), Chapter XX XI.— Corrigenda. Chapter XXXII.
—Non-Christian Tribe Problems. Chapter XX XIII. — Slavery in the Philippine Islands. Chapter
XXXIV.— The Philippine Assembly. Chapter XXXV.—Is Independence Possible? Chapter
XXXVI.— The Future of the Philippines.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
NEW BOOKS OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY
| The Soul of America
By STANTON COIT
Chairman of the West London Ethical Society, Formerly Head Worker of the New York
University Settlement, and Author of “The Message of Man,”
“Woman in Church and State,” etc.
Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net
In this book Dr. Coit advocates a policy for the spiritual unification of
America. On historical and psychological grounds he identifies the higher
spirit of nationality with religion. Judaism, he affirms, was a worship of the
unifying soul of the Jewish tribe. The Roman Catholic Church was only the
organization and instrument of the soul of the Roman Empire. Philosophy,
he maintains, is the doctrine of an academic school; religion is the active
moral idealism of the nation, sanctioned by a State in the interests of
humanity.
Dr. Coit places the highest value upon the sociological or national func-
tion of the various religious denominations within the nation, but maintains
that they will never do their true redemptive work until they regard them-
selves not as churches, but as ecclesiastical parties within the nation, which is
the living church of which every citizen is an active member for good or evil,
whether he knows it or not.
Democracy and Race Friction
A STUDY IN SOCIAL ETHICS
By JOHN MOFFATT MECKLIN, Px.D.
Professor of Philosophy in the University of Pittsburgh
Cloth, r2mo, $1.50 net
Professor Mecklin’s purpose in this volume is not to present a solution of
the race problem, which he believes to be insoluble, but rather to indicate as
clearly as possible what the problem really involves. With this end in view
he has brought to bear upon the subject the results of the work recently done
in social psychology by such men as Tarde, Baldwin, McDougall, Ross, and
others. An analysis of the social principles by which the individual lives
himself into the lives of the group and at the same time attains mental and
moral maturity is followed by an examination of race traits with special refer-
ence to the Negro to determine bow far they influence the process of becom-
ing social and solid with one’s fellows. The results thus gained are utilized
to explain the imperfect way in which the Negro has assimilated the civiliza-
tion of the white and why the color line appears universally where whites
and blacks are brought together in large numbers. The book closes with an
attempt at a restatement of the meaning of democracy.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
NEW BOOKS OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY
The Establishment of State Government
in California, |846—1850
By CARDINAL GOODWIN, M.A.
Cloth, 8vo, $1.50 net
The author divides his work into three main parts entitled The Inter-
Regnum, The Constitutional Convention, and The Organization of State
Government. Under these general heads he takes up, among other topics,
the following: American Influence and the Conquest, The Period of Mili-
tary Rule, Gold and Its Problems, Organization of the Convention, The
Departments of Government, The Free Negro Question Determining the
Eastern Boundary, Corporations and Banks, Education and Taxation, The
Convention’s Work Completed, Sources of the Constitution, The First Legis-
lature, The Governor’s Message and Finance, Civil or Common Law, Provi-
sions for Local Government, The Land Question and Other Enactments of
the State Legislature, The Sectional Character of the First Legislature, and
Admission to Statehood.
Roman Imperialism
By TENNEY FRANK, Pu.D.
Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College
With maps. Cloth, 8vo, $2.50 net
Ancient Rome was the first republic that successfully built up and gov-
erned a subject Empire. Professor Frank’s work undertakes to analyze the
factors that worked for and against imperialism in the ancient republic, to
discuss the experiments in governing its possessions, and to estimate the con-
sequences of these experiments. The author has made every effort to incor-
porate the latest results of scholarly investigation in his book, so that it may
prove of value in courses in history and government, but the volume will also
claim the attention of general readers who may be interested in comparing
modern imperialistic tendencies with the very striking parallels offered by
Rome’s History.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
DATE DUE
a a
ST. MARY’S MFio4a Bo LIBRARY
WCC =
be ONT et
as
eae
¢
CO eh
ee Kine
eee ew
it vee
¢
Oe eee
FETA IS TD eg
‘evn
v
‘ D
Se a ee THEN SY TIN Ty
Se ee ree Kho
o aaa oe
were yyy,
eee is eee
ee
"7
ev eet
Ce ery
ey ee *
Pe ee ey ee, “ oe are
ee ee ee EEE ER EEA,
Se eee SAD
Ne er ety
iy vey
ron oe
boron
ne veyvve
verve
cg
BA vy ”
Vy
ert
owe.
eye
cade
¢
4%
af
<
a
o
4,4 ,%
44¢
Papa!
$424
<
40%
LP bry:
<.%,
Sats
<
SERS
<
o8 eek.
Parra be)
23
eye,
Soe ee
32
pptvte sta
Pry)
eet
at
€
*
*
4
4
i
¢
<
)
<
“
4
4
<4
7,
Se
+
s
4,
¢
ate
tie
tat
ae
¢
454,
ese
Sete
eset
*.
ttf,
<
teSe
.
<
<,
$<
it!
<
5
aie
<i:
*
<
<
4,
4
€
2,
¢
4
4,
ri
¢
o
<
Mt,
553.
<3
et
6 J
t,
+4
<,¢,
ga aetes,
Agtgtgt
4etet
ete?
<
«
%
158
evastetes.
tj tetete tet
ais? i$ tah)
i
*
<
“tl
if
2
ease
Sat t.
<3egt
7
at
th
46%
Gt
<
<
<,
t
+
‘
<
Matcteste “9
seisiepeiecesetes<
$ 445
<
'<
ete
t
at
ate
Seked<
:
ei
abetehe
sie
<
S
‘
*
x
Agt
<t
vey
4
;
;
Ser
Serre
*
H
t
tts
<td
si¢
‘
<
<,
£
r
a
<
a
7.
«
as
ait
©
t
r
355,
.
)
.
<
We
4
<
¢
<
e*<
.
te
.
<
<f
€
<'
2
r
<
<
veeuue
2,
<ee
“
‘
re
4
432
*
6
£8,
H
‘
2%
x
<
zsai.
iat
+
af
az)
3
‘
<
s)
<
<8
Se
<
«
as
<
8:
<
4
eee
S<iaSe'
Steet
See
<
<
<
<
<
<
*
sis
ane
* s.
SSsc835y
S
<
=e
,
Se
3
“3s
<
i)
apes
SSRSis.
“
=
4,
383
<
eS
ty
i
i
Sx
s
a3<S
44
a
Ae
=,
<<
335
<}s
Ss
Si8t
aX
eee
SiS
=
<>
Sse
BS
ms ~*.
8D
=
sats
» 4
=~
ST eSTSTS
Sagas
>
:
aS
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11